Communicated on 29 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 6151/12 Mihail PETIS and O thers against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 18 January 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mihail Petis , Maxim Ciumacenco , Mihail Doag a and Igor Gherghelejiu are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1989, 1981 and 1991 respectively and live in Bender. They are all represented by A. Postica , a lawyer practising in Chisinau.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants were arrested by the “ Transdnietrian authorities” and placed in detention between 27 and 31 August 2009 on charges of rape of a minor girl.

On 27 May 2011 they were all convicted to prison sentences varying between seven and twenty years ’ imprisonment. The applicants appealed and argued, inter alia , that the alleged victim of the rape was a prostitute who engaged in sexual relations with them voluntarily and who lodged a criminal complaint against them three days later as a result of a money related dispute.

On 19 July 2011 the “Supreme Court of Transdniestria ” examined the applicants ’ appeal in their absence and dismissed it.

The applicants are detained to date in the Hlinaia prison in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their detention by the “ Trandniestrian authorities” was unlawful and ordered by an authority which did not qualify as a co urt for the purposes of Article 5. Moreover, their detention was contrary even to the “legislation of Transdniestria ”.

The applicants also complain under Article 6 that their conviction was carried out by a court which did not qualify as a tribunal established by law and that the proceedings were not fair.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants 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) and Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 102-123, 19 October 2012) on account of the circumstances of the present case?

2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?