Communicated on 16 May 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 4711/07 Ion MANOLE and Alexandru POSTICA against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 7 December 2006

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant ’ s detention by Russian soldiers on the territory of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria ” (the “MRT”), as well as their alleged degrading treatment during that detention. It raises issues under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 13 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; Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370 /04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10 , §§ 80-112, 23 February 2016 ) 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 Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment as a result of their detention at gunpoint followed by shots in their immediate vicinity from an automatic assault rifle?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1? In particular, were the applicants lawfully detained, on what ground and was there a formal decision taken to detain them ( Mozer , cited above, §§ 122-150)?

4 . Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 ( Mozer , cited abov e, §§ 202 ‑ 212)?