Communicated on 17 June 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 74433/11 Rostom ASLANIAN against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 28 November 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s conviction for refusing military service in the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria ”, despite his readiness to carry out alternative service. It raises an issue under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], n o. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII; Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia , no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011; and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370 /04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) on account of the circumstances of the present case?

In particular, in the light of the above-mentioned cases, could the responsibility of the respondent Governments under the Convention be engaged on account of their positive obligations to secure the applicants ’ rights under the Convention?

Have there been any developments following the above-mentioned cases which might affect the responsibility of either Contracting Party?

2. Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Articles 9 and/or 14 of the Convention as a result of convicting the applicant despite his opposition to military service on religious grounds and his willingness to carry out alternative civilian service (see Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§ 92-128, ECHR 2011)?