CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40926/16 Oleksandr LYPOVCHENKO against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 7 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and conviction by the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria”; his detention in allegedly inhuman conditions, including psychiatric treatment allegedly not required by his condition; his inability to obtain medical documents in support of his application to the Court and to communicate with the Court and the absence of effective remedies. It raises issues under Articles 3, 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 13 and 34 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], no.   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 Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant detained in inhuman conditions, was he provided with medical treatment required by his condition and was he subjected to psychiatric treatment not required by his condition (see, for instance, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 172-182, 23 February 2016)?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1? In particular, was the applicant lawfully arrested ( Mozer , cited above, §§ 122-150)?   4.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1? In particular, was the applicant lawfully convicted (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 22200/10, §§ 32-47, 30 May 2017)?   5.     Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did he have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 ( Mozer , cited above, §§ 202-212)?   6.     Has there been a breach of Articled 34 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant prevented from communicating with the Court and/or from obtaining his medical documents substantiating his complaint under Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis , Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 76957/01, §§ 64-68, 17 October 2017)?