CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 March 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28857/14 Pavel RÎBAC and RODINA-AGRO S.A. against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 31 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fining of the applicants by the authorities of the self-proclaimed Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria for holding a peaceful assembly. The applicants claim that their rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were breached. 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 and   2   others, §§ 102-23, ECHR 2012 (extracts), on account of the circumstances of the present case?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention ( Navalnyy v.   Russia [GC], nos.   29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 85-153, 15 November 2018)?