CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s534D399A { width:4.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sFA2E2D22 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4D686973 { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCDC08720 { width:34.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2D1168BD { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s256F5E63 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s89265D1A { width:4.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1E956FF8 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA39543F { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B97060C { width:34.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s50398B03 { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCD45BF3 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 15 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2201/19 Anton DRIUCENCO against the Republic of Moldova and Russia and 18 other applicatons (see appended list) communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications mainly concern, under Article 6 of the Convention, the alleged lack of hearings by a tribunal established by law in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria”, which is located on the territory of the Republic of Moldova (the “MRT” – for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   48787/99, §§ 28-185 ECHR 2004-VII). The applicants also complain of unlawful restrictions on and interferences with their right to respect for private and family life and their right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and freedom of movement (under Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention). Their other complaints concern additional aspects of Article   6   §§ 1 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention. The complaints are described in detail in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In all applications, given the circumstances of the present cases, do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of   Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos.   40926/16   and   73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20   February 2024) and   Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia   ([GC], no.   11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016)? 2.     In applications nos. 2201/19, 28252/19, 59253/19, 29235/20, 29328/20, 29233/21, 35136/21, 7803/22, 37819/22, 40548/22, and 46376/22, did the applicants have a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law in the determination of their civil rights and obligations or of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco , cited above, §§ 123-29)? 3.     In application no. 37819/22, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected, especially with regard to the findings of the “MRT court” as to the grounds for the applicant’s dismissal in a parallel civil case ( see Felix Guţu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 13112/07, 20 October 2020)? 4.     In applications nos. 29235/20, 35136/21, 22027/22, 37819/22, and 50411/22, has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Vardanean v.   Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 22200/10, §§ 50-57, 30 May 2017; Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no.   40167/06, §§ 252-61, ECHR 2015; and Mozer , cited above, § 190)? 5.     In applications nos. 59253/19, 36033/22, 4960/23, and 5696/24, has there been a violation of applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Glukhin v. Russia , no. 11519/20, § 51, 4 July 2023 )? 6.     In applications no. 59253/19 and 4960/23, did the “MRT” authorities’ refusal to authorise a public assembly constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 106, 26 April 2016)? 7.     In applications nos. 2201/19, 29235/20, 29328/20, 7803/22, and   36501/22, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society (see Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , nos. 21034/05 and   7 others, §§ 72-84, 17 July 2018, and Eriomenco , cited above, §§ 75-85)? 8.     In applications nos. 54164/21, 22027/22, 40554/22, and 50411/22, has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention with regard to the entry/exit bans issued by the “MRT” authorities? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 41660/10 and 5 others, §§   90-99, 3 September 2019)? 9.     In respect of the remainder of the applicants’ complaints, do they disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicants? In particular: (a)     In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? (b)     In the relevant applications, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with the other provisions listed in the appended table, with regard to the absence of effective remedies in the “MRT”? APPENDIX   List of cases: No. Case name Application no. Lodged on   Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by   Summary of facts Complaints Other complaints 1. Driucenco v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 2201/19 28/12/2018 Anton DRIUCENCO 1984 Chișinău Moldovan   Alexandru POSTICĂ Nicoleta HRIPLIVII Pavel CAZACU In 2016 the applicant bought a car from a person residing in the “MRT”. On 26 May 2017 the car was seized by the “MRT” authorities within the context of a criminal case against a former “MRT Minister of the Interior”. The applicant asked the “MRT” courts to annul the seizure order, arguing that his property rights had been violated and seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 4 May 2018 the applicant was summoned by telephone to a hearing on 5 May 2018. However, the hearing was postponed without a date for a new hearing being set. On 11   May 2018, without summoning the applicant, the “MRT Tiraspol Court” dismissed his complaint, stating that there was no evidence to prove his property rights over the car. On 29   June 2018 the “MRT Supreme Court” rejected, with final effect, the appeals lodged by the applicant as out of time. The applicant complained to the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office, asking it to open an investigation into the theft of his car. On 18   December 2018 he was informed that a criminal investigation would not be initiated as no elements of an offence could be identified. The applicant argues that he was not served with the text of the prosecutor’s decision. The applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, but to no avail.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention: unlawful seizure of the applicant’s car by the “MRT” authorities     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: unfairness of proceedings before the “MRT courts” 2. Shevchuk v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 28259/19 02/05/2019 Evgheny SHEVCHUK 1968 Tiraspol Russian The applicant was the “president” of the “MRT” between 2011 and 2016. Beginning in December 2016, eight criminal cases were initiated against him by the “MRT” authorities on various charges, including corruption and embezzlement of public funds. All eight cases were subsequently joined. The applicant asked the “MRT” authorities to grant access to the case file to two of his lawyers practicing in Chișinău. The lawyers were denied access on the grounds that the case file contained official secrets to which foreign lawyers were not permitted access. The applicant appealed against the decision. On 12 September 2018 the “MRT Supreme Court” dismissed the request with final effect. During the “court proceedings”, the applicant was also represented by a lawyer practicing in Tiraspol who had been given access to the case file but was forbidden from making copies of documents or taking notes. According to the applicant, on 21 December 2018 the “MRT Supreme Court” found him guilty and sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine and several penalties. The applicant’s lawyer in the “MRT” was not served with the decision and was granted access to it only within the premises of the court. According to the applicant, he lodged an appeal, which was dismissed on 13 March 2019.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: trial by a tribunal not established by law     Article   6 §§   1   and 3 of the Convention: unfairness of criminal proceedings before the “MRT” courts; violations of the applicant’s defence rights; lack of access to the case file and of legal assistance by a lawyer of his own choosing   Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention: no effective remedy 3. N.P. I.P.C. Apriori v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 59253/19 24/10/2019 N.P. I.P.C. APRIORI 2008 Tiraspol Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII The applicant is a non-governmental organisation incorporated in the “MRT”. On 1 November 2018 an “MRT prosecutor” opened an investigation into the applicant organisation’s activities. On 12   February 2018 the “MRT prosecutor” concluded that the applicant organisation had held several politically oriented meetings using funding from an international organisation – actions which were contrary to “MRT Law on non-profit organisations”. The “prosecutor” ordered the applicant organisation to remedy the identified violations within one month. On 16 January 2019 the applicant organisation applied to the “MRT court” for the annulment of the “prosecutor’s” decision. The case was heard in the “judge’s” office and a limited number of people were allowed to attend on account of the limited space. On 14 February 2019 the “MRT Tiraspol Court” dismissed the applicant organisation’s application. The decision was upheld by the “MRT Supreme Court” on 25 April 2019.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention: unlawful restriction on the right to freedom of expression and on the right to peaceful assembly Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: unfairness of proceedings before the “MRT courts”, in particular the lack of a reasoned court decision and of a public hearing   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention no effective remedy   4. Şevciuk v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 29235/20 16/06/2020 Varvara ŞEVCIUK 1938 Rîbnița Russian   Maxim BELINSCHI The applicant is the mother of a former “MRT president”. In 2018 the “MRT courts” sentenced the applicant’s son to 16 years’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine and several penalties (see application no. 28259/19 above). On 10 July 2019 the “MRT Supreme Court” ordered the forfeiture of the applicant’s son’s house. The applicant argued that she was a co-owner of the house in question and complained that the forfeiture would also affect her rights. While her complaint was awaiting examination, on 19 July 2019 enforcement proceedings began and all belongings in the house (including furniture, home appliances and clothes) were confiscated. The applicant appealed against the actual forfeiture of her property, but the “MRT courts” left her complaint unexamined, stating that she had no authority to act on behalf of her son. A subsequent appeal lodged by the applicant was examined and dismissed by the same “judge”. All of the applicant’s belongings were forfeited on the basis of subsequent orders. The applicant lodged appeals but to no avail. The final decision on her appeals was delivered by the “MRT Supreme Court” on 5 December 2019. At the time the application was lodged with the Court, the keys to the applicant’s house were stored at the headquarters of the “MRT police”, who refused to hand them over. Complaints by the applicant to the prosecutors’ offices of the “MRT”, Moldova, and Russia were unsuccessful.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: unlawful forfeiture of personal belongings and property   Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: unfairness of proceedings, lack of a hearing by an impartial tribunal.   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention: no effective remedy   5. Pridniestrovsky Gumanitarny Fond v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 29328/20 16/06/2020 PRIDNIESTROVSKY GUMANITARNY FOND 2009 Tiraspol Moldovan   Maxim BELINSCHI The applicant is a charity organisation incorporated in the “MRT” co-founded by the former “president” of “MRT” (E.S), who was also its executive officer. In 2018 the “MRT courts” sentenced E.S. to 16 years’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine and several penalties (see application no. 28259/19 above). On the basis of E.S.’s role in the management of the applicant organisation, on 21 June 2019 an “MRT bailiff” initiated enforcement proceedings against the applicant, and on 5 July 2019 the “bailiff” seized its bank accounts containing EUR   798,155. E.S. acting as representative of the applicant organisation, appealed against the seizure decision to the “MRT courts”. His appeal was left unexamined, as he allegedly had no authority to act on behalf of the applicant organisation and that E.S.’s lawyer lacked proper authorisation. Subsequent appeals lodged by him were rejected by the same “judge” who had refused to examine his initial appeal. A final decision was delivered on 22 October 2019. E.S. complained to the Moldovan authorities, which refused to open a criminal investigation. E.S.’s complaint to the authorities of the Russian Federation was left unexamined.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: unlawful forfeiture of property   Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by an impartial tribunal   Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: no effective remedy 6. Miascovscaia v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 29233/21 22/04/2021 Galina MIASCOVSCAIA 1965 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHI On 18 November 2019 the applicant was dismissed from her position at a dry-cleaning company on account of alleged fraud and her employer’s “loss of confidence” in her. On 4 December 2019 the applicant initiated “court proceedings” seeking her reinstatement. She complained about various violations of her employment rights by her former employer, including underpayment and the failure to officially register her employment in her employment record. On 22 October 2020 the “MRT Supreme Court” dismissed the case with final effect, stating that no evidence capable of proving the existence of an employment relationship between the applicant and the dry-cleaning company had been presented. The “court” further held that the “MRT” Civil Code had been applicable in the case because the relationship between the parties had been based on a service contract rather than an employment contract.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: unfairness of civil proceedings, in particular insufficiently reasoned court decisions     7. Ilchenko v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 35136/21 25/06/2021 Pyotr ILCHENKO 1946 Rașcov Ukrainian In 2017 the applicant discovered that a medical certificate issued to his son by an “MRT” psychiatric hospital stated that his son was unfit for military service because when he had been a minor, “[the applicant] had hit [him] while under the influence of alcohol”. In 2021 the applicant initiated “court proceedings” against the “MRT” psychiatric hospital, seeking to have the above-mentioned statements declared false and to obtain compensation for the interference with his right to reputation. On 22 April 2021 the “MRT Supreme Court” refused, with final effect, to examine the case, citing the applicant’s failure to substantiate his claim.     Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: lack of access to a tribunal established by law   Article 8 of the Convention: unlawful interference with the right to respect for private and family life     8. Carp v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 54164/21 08/10/2021 Olga CARP 1986 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Vadim VIERU The applicant worked as a deputy director in a private company incorporated in the “MRT”. On 11 June 2019 she was informed that the “MRT” authorities had initiated two criminal cases against her for alleged fraud and the alleged embezzlement of funds belonging to her employer. On 11 July 2019 the applicant was banned from leaving the “MRT” region. On 22 June 2020 the “MRT Tiraspol Court” found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to eight months’ imprisonment and to a fine. The sentence was conditionally suspended for two years. The ban on leaving the “MRT” was subsequently extended to two years. On 25 August 2020 the same “judge” who had sentenced the applicant rejected appeals lodged by her as out of time. The applicant complained to the Moldovan authorities, which opened a criminal investigation that is still ongoing. On 31 August 2021 the embassy of the Russian Federation in Moldova informed the applicant that it was transferring to the “MRT” authorities a complaint which she had made to it.     Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: unlawful restriction on the applicant’s right to freedom of movement   Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: no effective remedy 9. Popovschii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 7803/22 21/01/2022 Stepan POPOVSCHII Tiraspol Moldovan   The applicant owns several flats in a residential building in the “MRT”. In 2004 the applicant and other individuals who owned property in the same building obtained the right to use the land adjoining the building for 99 years. On 29 January 2020 the local public administration initiated “administrative court proceedings” seeking acknowledgment that the owners of flats in the residential building did not have an easement over the land adjacent to the building. The applicant attended a court hearing on 21 September 2020, to which he had been legally summoned on 3   September 2020. He was not summoned to other court hearings, which were held in his absence. On 30 March 2021 the applicant was publicly summoned via an announcement in a local newspaper to a hearing on 6 April 2021, at which the court ruled in favour of the local administration. The judgment was upheld, with final effect, by the “MRT Supreme Court” on 29   July 2021.     Article 6 §   1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention: unlawful interference with the acquired right to use adjacent land   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 1 of Protocol no.   1 to the Convention: no effective remedy 10. Timuş v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 22027/22 18/04/2022 VictorTIMUŞ 1963 Molovata Nouă Moldovan   Nicoleta HRIPLIVÎI The applicant is a veteran of the Transnistrian armed conflict, a civil rights activist and an advocate for human rights in the “MRT”. He is also president of a local NGO. He was living in the “MRT” with his family when, during an “internal border” check on 12 August 2020, he was informed that he had been banned from entering the “MRT” region for three years. He was ordered to leave the region. On 28 December 2020 the applicant complained to the “MRT Ministry of the Interior”, requesting to be informed of the reasons for the entry ban and to have the ban annulled. On 21 January and 3   February 2021, the applicant’s request was dismissed on account of his “foreign nationality”. The applicant complained to the Moldovan authorities and a criminal case was opened. Those proceedings are ongoing. A complaint lodged by the applicant with the Russian authorities was rejected.     Article 8 of the Convention: unlawful restriction on the applicant’s access to his home   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: unlawful restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of movement   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 8, and 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: no effective remedy       11. Ermurachi v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 36033/22 07/07/2022 Mihail ERMURACHI 1950 Tiraspol Moldovan   Vadim VIERU On 20 July 2021 the “MRT Tiraspol Court” fined the applicant 500 euros for allegedly criticising the “MRT president”. In particular, during a private conversation with another individual, the applicant allegedly called the “MRT president” a “mercenary” and a “puppet”. On 26 July 2021 the applicant lodged a formal appeal, complaining that the fine had been imposed on him without any reasons being provided. On 10 January 2022 and then again on 17 February 2022 he was informed that his appeals had been rejected without examining them because they allegedly contained offensive language directed towards “public officials of MRT”. The applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and the Russian embassy in the Republic of Moldova. He received no answer. He also informed the Moldovan authorities that he had been unlawfully charged and asked them for financial aid. On 5 September 2025 the applicant informed the Court that on 14 March 2023 the fine had been replaced with eight months’ imprisonment.     Article 10 of the Convention : unlawful interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention: no effective remedy   12. Victoria-Cocieri S.R.L. v. Republic of Moldova and the Russia 36501/22 15/07/2022 VICTORIA-COCIERI S.R.L. 2012 Cocieri Moldovan   Vadim VIERU The applicant company is a private company incorporated in the “MRT” which rents plots of land from individual owners. In order to reach the land it rents, its representatives have to cross a road controlled by the “MRT” authorities. Between 2014 and 2018 the applicant company was denied access to that land. From 2018 the applicant company’s access to the land was conditional on it obtaining a licence from the “MRT” authorities. The applicant company complained to the Moldovan authorities, which on 22 September 2014 started a criminal investigation that is still ongoing. In 2020 the applicant was informed that two “MRT individuals” had been charged with unlawful exercise of public authority and arbitrary exercise of authority. On 25 November 2020 the applicant company lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. By a letter dated 17 December 2020, the applicant company was informed that there was no need for an intervention by the Russian authorities. On 19 November 2021 the applicant company complained to the embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Moldova, but to no avail.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: unlawful restriction on the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of its possessions since 2014 Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention: no effective remedy 13. Mahlin and Lysenko v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 37819/22 25/07/2022 Maxim MAHLIN 1994 Grigoriopol Russian   Iulia LÎSENCO 1981 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHII The applicants are partners and live in the “MRT”. The first applicant is a former official of the “MRT Ministry of the Interior”. On 8 August 2020 he was arrested by the “MRT” authorities on suspicion of aggravated murder and abuse of power. The second applicant acted as the lawyer of the first applicant in a separate civil case initiated on 3   August 2021, which concerned the reimbursement of the cost of the first applicant’s tuition fees to the “MRT Ministry of the Interior”. On 2 November 2021, before a judgment had been delivered in the criminal proceedings against the first applicant, the “MRT first-instance court” ordered him to reimburse the cost of his tuition fees, holding that he had been dismissed from his position at the “Ministry of the Interior” at his request on account of the seriousness of his crimes. The second applicant tried on several occasions to visit the first applicant in prison in order to prepare his defence in the civil case, but to no avail. Her last request for such visits was dated 7 April 2022. On 7 February 2022, after the second applicant had obtained the authority to represent the first applicant in legal proceedings, she lodged an appeal on points of law against the “court” decision of 2 November 2021, seeking to have it quashed on account of the “court’s” alleged failure to follow the correct procedure. On 24 March 2022 the “MRT Supreme Court” dismissed her appeal with final effect. The criminal proceedings against the first applicant were pending at the time when the application was lodged.       Article 6   §   1 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law in respect of his civil claims   Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant: violation of the presumption of innocence by concluding that the first applicant had committed a crime before a final conviction in the criminal case   Article 8 of the Convention in respect of both applicants: unlawful restriction on their visiting rights while the first applicant was in detention in the “MRT” Article 6   §   1 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant: unfairness of civil proceedings.     14. Tohteev v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 40548/22 13/08/2022 Nikita TOHTEEV 1996 Tiraspol Moldovan, Russian   Stepan POPOVSCHII At 5.30 a.m. on 31 October 2021 the applicant’s car was stopped by the “MRT police”. Following a dispute with the “police officers”, the applicant was forcibly removed from the vehicle and taken to a medical facility to test the alcohol levels in his blood. He was detained there until 10.30 a.m. On 15 April 2022, by a final decision of the “MRT Supreme Court”, the applicant was found guilty of refusing to undergo a breathalyser test. He was issued an administrative fine and his driving licence was suspended for a period of one year and eight months.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: conviction by a tribunal not established by law   15. Garmaş v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 40554/22 15/08/2022 Nicolai GARMAŞ 1961 Bender Ukrainian   Vadim VIERU On 14 January 2021 the applicant was taken into custody by the “MRT” authorities and detained at the “Bender militia pre-trial detention centre”. On 17 January 2021 he was released after admitting that he had committed theft. On the same day he was banned from leaving the “MRT” region. On 6   September 2021 the applicant was charged with the offence of making a false accusation of a serious crime, after having lodged a criminal complaint of ill-treatment by an “investigator” during a search of his home on 23 June 2021. On the same day he was again banned from leaving the “MRT”. The applicant filed complaints with the authorities of both Moldova and Russia. The Moldovan authorities initiated a criminal investigation on 16   July 2021 into alleged trespassing. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending when he lodged his application with the Court.     Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: unlawful restriction of the right to the freedom of movement   Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention no effective remedy 16. Curacova v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 46376/22 14/09/2022 Tatiana CURACOVA 1977 Rîbnița Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII The applicant worked as a medical assistant in a hospital in the “MRT”. From 21 December 2020 until 14 June 2021, she worked in the COVID-19 unit of the hospital. On 9 June 2021 she was orally informed that she would be transferred to another unit. The applicant refused to be transferred and asked to be served with the order in writing. The applicant stopped going to work, arguing that her transfer to another unit was illegal and that no reasons for it had been provided. On 6 July 2021 she was dismissed. On 16 August 2021 the applicant initiated “court proceedings” seeking her reinstatement. The “MRT Rîbnița District Court” dismissed her application, arguing that her consent had not been necessary to temporarily transfer her to another unit. On 16 June 2022 the “MRT Supreme Court” dismissed the case with final effect.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law   Article 6   §   1 of the Convention: fairness of proceedings, in particular insufficiently reasoned court decisions   17. Moșneaga v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 50411/22 12/10/2022 Oleg MOȘNEAGA 1978 Corjova Moldovan   Nicoleta HRIPLIVÎI Between 2014 and 2019 the applicant worked as an “MRT border police officer” and lived in the “MRT”. On 12 July 2018 he was informed that he was banned from entering the “MRT”, without being provided with the reasons for that restriction. On 1 February 2020 the applicant’s mother complained to the “MRT” authorities and requested the annulment of her son’s entry ban. She cited her poor health and submitted that she needed her son’s help, but to no avail. The applicant complained to the “MRT” authorities, seeking to be informed of the reasons for the entry ban and requesting its annulment. The applicant complained to the Moldovan authorities, which opened a criminal investigation that is still ongoing.     Article 8 of the Convention: no access to his home and impossibility to visit his family   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: unlawful restriction of his right to freedom of movement   Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 8 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention: no effective remedy 18. Dolhopolova and Others v.   the Republic of Moldova and Russia 4960/23 11/01/2023 Oleksandra DOLHOPOLOVA 1997 Bender Ukrainian   Nicolai CUZMIN 1991 Tiraspol Moldovan Stepan POPOVSCHII 1966 Chișinău Bulgarian, Moldovan   Stepan POPOVSCHII     On 1 March 2022 the applicants requested authorisation from the “MRT” authorities for a peaceful demonstration to support Ukrainian refugees and to call for an end to the war in Ukraine. On 3 March 2022 their request was dismissed by the local administration, which cited COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The decision was served on the applicants the following day. On 4 June 2022 the applicants appealed against the refusal to the “MRT courts”. On 29   September 2022 the “MRT Supreme Court” rejected their appeal as time-barred. Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention: unlawful restriction of their rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention: no effective remedy   19. Samonii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia 5696/24 07/06/2021 Alexandr SAMONII 1981 Ternăuca Moldovan   Vadim VIERU The applicant was a member of the Tiraspol city council in “MRT” for an opposition political party, a position which granted him immunity from prosecution. He was also editor-in-chief of a local newspaper. On 2 June 2020 the “MRT” authorities initiated a criminal investigation in respect of him into suspected “incitement to extremism”, on the basis of a Facebook post he had allegedly published. On 4 June 2020 the applicant left the “MRT”. A criminal complaint lodged by the applicant with the Russian authorities was rejected, while in Moldova criminal proceedings were opened. The applicant’s last complaint to the Russian authorities (which was lodged on 3 June 2021) was left unexamined.     Article 10 of the Convention: restriction of his right to freedom of expression Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention: no effective remedy