Communicated on 25 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 5216/13 Alexandru COLIBAN against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 18 January 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant ’ s rights by the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria ” (the “MRT”). In particular, he was detained by unlawfully constituted authorities, was held in inhuman conditions of detention ( parasites; poor sanitary conditions; not working ventilation; overcrowding; no access to daylight insufficient food and drinking water ) and given insufficient medical assistance.

The applicant was convicted of interfering with the right of others to freely exercise their right to vote and sentenced to two years and six months ’ imprisonment for distributing leaflets in which he criticised one of the candidates for the “MRT” presidency, who in the meantime was elected as president. The leaflets were as follows: “I have a Land Cruiser 200, and you?”, “Bye-bye, losers” and “This is lucky John. He studied in England, has a bank account in Switzerland, and wants to be the President of Transdniestria ”.

The applicant complains of a violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention and insufficient medical assistance) and Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention for actions which could not be considered a crime), as well as Articles 10 and 13.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As to the admissibility

1. Did the applicant come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, inter alia, in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], (no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [ GC] (nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 102-123, 19 October 2012; and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on account of the circumstances of the present case?

In that connection, bearing in mind that up until now the Grand Chamber ’ s conclusions have generally been based on a lack of convincing and new information from the Governments concerned, the Court again invites the latter to reply to the question whether there has been any development following the period under consideration in the case of Mozer – that is, after July 2010 – which might have an effect on their respective responsibilities. In this context, the Governments, in particular the Government of Russia, are asked:

a) to provide the Court with any tangible information and any relevant argument capable of establishing that, since July 2010, Russia has no longer been exercising effective control and/or decisive influence over the authorities of the self-proclaimed Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria (the “MRT”),

b) to express their opinion – with supporting documents and referring specifically to the rules governing the courts ’ structure and to the existing body of case-law – on the question whether, since that date, the “MRT” courts, including the Constitutional Court set up on 12 June 2002, can be regarded as independent and impartial and deemed to have become part of a judicial system operating on a constitutional and legal basis reflecting a judicial tradition that conforms to the Convention and respects the rule of law. In order to answer this question, the Court invites the Governments concerned, particularly Russia, to use, as appropriate, the diplomatic channels and means available to them for the purposes of gathering the required information from the Transdniestrian judicial authorities and to communicate it to the Court.

As to the merits

2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular (see Mozer , cited above, §§ 172-184 ):

(a) was the applicant provided with an appropriate level of medical assistance?

(b) was he held in inhuman conditions of detention?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Mozer , cited above, §§ 123-159)?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Savva Terentyev v. Russia , no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018)?

5. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention?