Communicated on 13 June 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 26626/11 Dumitru PADURET against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 6 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dumitru Paduret , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Cocieri , a village located on the left bank of the Dniester river , but controlled by the Moldovan constitutional authorities. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Zubco , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

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

On 22 August 2010 the applicant, who is an entrepreneur, was transporting merchandise to an agricultural market in the town of Dubasari , the secessionist region of Transdniestria . He was stopped by two persons who pretended to be customs officers of the “republic of Transdniestria ” and who seized his van and the merchandise on account of alleged smuggling of the merchandise. On 7 October 2010 the “customs authority of Transdniestria ” issued a decision obliging the applicant to pay a fine of some 1,320 euros. The applicant paid the fine in order to be able to recuperate his van.

In the meantime the applicant complained to the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova about the seizure of his van and merchandise and, on 9 September 2010, the Dubasari Prosecutor ’ s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the facts of the case. However, the investigation was discontinued on 18 March 2011.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the seizing of his van and merchandise and his subsequent fining constituted an unlawful interference with his right to property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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) 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. Do the facts of the cases disclose a vio lation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?