SECOND SECTION
CASE OF OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Application no. 36545/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 February 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Oprea and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 January 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 36545/06) against the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by fifty-seven Moldovan nationals on 25 August 2006 (see Appendix 1).
2. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Postică and Mr I. Manole, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and the Russian Government were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Galperin.
3. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been denied access to their land, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that they had had no effective remedies available to them.
4. On 27 August 2018 the respondent Governments were given notice of the application.
5. The Russian Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicants live in Molovata-Nouă (Dubăsari district), a village under Moldovan control on the left bank of the Dniester River.
7. At the time of lodging their application, the applicants all had titles to nearby plots of land, between 0.3 and 4 hectares in size, which they had obtained from the Moldovan authorities. Their land was on territory controlled by the Moldovan authorities but situated across a road which links the northern and southern parts of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic” (the “MRT”). The road, which cuts through two zones controlled by the Moldovan Government on the left bank of the Dniester River, is controlled by the authorities of the “MRT”. The applicants derived most of their income from working the land owned by them.
8. Title to some of the land was subsequently transferred to others by sale, gift or inheritance. The details of each applicant are set out in Appendixes 1 and 2.
9. Between 1992 and 1998 the applicants used the land they owned without interference. In 1998 the “MRT” authorities set up checkpoints in order to monitor the movement of agricultural products across the “border” road. According to the applicants, the checkpoints enabled the “MRT” authorities to subject them to various forms of harassment, such as impeding them from transporting the tools, agricultural machinery, equipment and fuel necessary for the exploitation of their land. Harvesting and transporting the agricultural products became extremely difficult, as the applicants and their family members were often humiliated when stopped at the checkpoints. From then on the applicants also had to pay various taxes and fees to “MRT” authorities, which they agreed to do since their livelihood depended on them working the land located across the road.
10. On 28 January 2000 the so-called “MRT” government issued a decision “on the regulation of land relations in the Dubăsari district”, compelling owners of plots of land situated across the Rîbnița to Dubăsari road to each enter into a lease agreement with the Dubăsari administration.
11. In October 2004 the “MRT” authorities declared that the land owned by the applicants was the property of the “MRT”. The applicants could continue working it on the condition that they rented it from the “MRT” local authorities.
12. In February 2005 the applicants were prevented by the “MRT” authorities from exploiting and farming their land. As a consequence, they sustained losses owing to their inability to use the land at the beginning of the agricultural season. Moreover, the land was not worked in the years that followed, which made it difficult to bring it back to its former state.
13. According to the applicants, they were threatened with fines, sanctions or being arrested by the “MRT” authorities, unless they could provide proof that they had entered into a lease agreement with the Dubăsari administration. The applicants described instances where the agricultural machinery of those trying to work their land had been seized. The landowners’ plots of land were monitored by the “MRT” military, border guards and militia, who would sanction any attempt to work the land.
14. The applicants made numerous complaints to the local “MRT” authorities, asking for a right of way to their land and permission to farm it. Their requests were refused since the land in question was considered to be the property of the “MRT”.
15. The applicants also complained to the Moldovan authorities, who replied that they had no means of compelling the “MRT” authorities to allow them unimpeded access. They asked the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office to start a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for blocking the applicants’ access to their land.
16. The applicants complained to the Russian embassy in Moldova and to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (“the OSCE”), but to no avail. On 26 April 2005 a group of landowners, including some of the applicants, protested in front of the Russian embassy in Moldova, asking the authorities to intervene as a guarantor of peace and stability in the region. A similar protest took place on 11 May 2005.
17. According to the Moldovan Government, the Moldovan Parliament passed a number of laws aimed at compensating the inhabitants of villages under Moldovan control on the left bank of the Dniester River (in the area concerned by the present cases) for losses caused by various actions of the “MRT”. The compensation included differences in natural gas and electricity prices, increasing pensions, giving tax breaks and preferential credits to agricultural companies in the region, and allocating diesel fuel for agricultural activities. Moreover, a number of laws and decisions were implemented between 2004 and 2007 providing for the payment of compensation to villagers who had sustained losses owing to their inability to farm their land in the relevant area, with the total amount of aid reaching almost 39 million Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 2.3 million euros (EUR)). In 2006 the Moldovan authorities managed to negotiate with the “MRT” authorities a temporary “MRT” registration system for owners of land in the relevant area, which allowed them to farm the land and be exempt from making payments to the “MRT”. The temporary registration system is renewed each year in negotiations between Moldova and the “MRT” authorities.RELEVANT NON-CONVENTION MATERIAL
18. Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).
THE LAWJURISDICTION
19. The Court must first determine whether, for the purposes of the matters complained of, the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of either or both of the respondent States, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.The parties’ submissions
20. The applicants and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction.
21. For their part, the Russian Government argued that the applicants did not come within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the applications should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation. As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑VII), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012) and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) had been wrong and at variance with public international law.The Court’s assessment
22. The general principles concerning the issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention in respect of acts and facts occurring in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova are set out in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, §§ 311-19), Catan and Others (cited above, §§ 103-07) and, more recently, Mozer (cited above, §§ 97-98).
23. As far as the Republic of Moldova is concerned, the Court notes that in Ilaşcu and Others, Catan and Others and Mozer it found that although Moldova had no effective control over the Transdniestrian region, it followed from the fact that Moldova was the territorial State that people within that territory fell within its jurisdiction. However, its obligation, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, was limited to taking the diplomatic, economic, judicial and other measures that were both in its power and in accordance with international law (see Ilaşcu and Others, § 333; Catan and Others, § 109; and Mozer, § 100; all cited above). Moldova’s obligations under Article 1 of the Convention were found to be positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others, §§ 322 and 330-31; Catan and Others, §§ 109-10; and Mozer, § 99, all cited above).
24. The Court sees no reason to distinguish the present case from the above-mentioned cases. Besides, it notes that the Moldovan Government have not objected to the Court applying a similar approach in the present case. It therefore finds that Moldova has jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, but that its responsibility for the acts complained of is to be assessed in the light of the above-mentioned positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 335).
25. As far as the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court notes that in Ilașcu and Others it found that the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in Transdniestria in 1991 to 1992 (see Ilașcu and Others, cited above, § 382). The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until July 2010 the “MRT” had only been able to continue to exist and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region because of Russian military, economic and political support (see Ivanţoc and Others, §§ 116‑20; Catan and Others, §§ 121‑22; and Mozer, §§ 108 and 110, all cited above). The Court concluded in Mozer that the “MRT’s” high level of dependency on Russian support provided a strong indication that the Russian Federation continued to exercise effective control and a decisive influence over the “MRT” authorities, and that the applicants in that case therefore fell within that State’s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 110-11).
26. The Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from Ilașcu and Others, Ivanţoc and Others, Catan and Others and Mozer (all cited above).
27. Consequently, it dismisses the Russian Government’s objections ratione personae and ratione loci and holds that the applicants in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation under Article 1 of the Convention.
28. The Court must therefore determine whether there has been any violation of the applicants’ rights under the Convention such as to engage the responsibility of either respondent State (see Mozer, cited above, § 112).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
29. The applicants complained that by not allowing them access to their land or by making it conditional on them paying rent, the “MRT” authorities had breached their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”Admissibility
30. The Moldovan Government submitted that the complaint lodged by twenty-one applicants was inadmissible because they had either disposed of their land by way of sale or gift or had died without there being any heirs wishing to continue the proceedings before the Court.
31. The applicants submitted that seven of them had disposed of their land after lodging the present application, but had done so because they had been unable to use their land for a long period of time. They argued that since no violation had been acknowledged and no compensation had been paid to them, the seven applicants concerned continued to be victims. The Court agrees that the seven applicants in question have not lost their victim status and dismisses the objection raised by the Moldovan Government.
32. The applicants further submitted that two applicants had died, and that their heirs wished to continue the proceedings before the Court. In view of the pecuniary nature of the complaints made in the present application, the Court sees no reason to refuse the requests by these heirs. For practical reasons, this judgment will continue to refer to the original applicants as “the applicants”, even though their heirs are now to be regarded as having that status.
33. Lastly, the applicants confirmed that thirteen applicants had died without there being any heirs wishing to continue the proceedings. Moreover, one applicant could not be traced by the representatives and another had disposed of her land before lodging the application. Accordingly, the applicants’ representatives requested that the Court strike out the application in respect of the above fifteen applicants.
34. The Court notes that two of the fifteen applicants mentioned above have not provided sufficient information for the Court to be able to continue examining their applications. In addition, thirteen applicants have died and no known successors have expressed the wish to continue with the relevant applications. Both categories of applicants are listed in Appendix 2.
35. The Court considers that the part of the application lodged by the fifteen applicants in question must be examined in the light of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, which provides:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
...
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
...”
36. The Court considers, having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case in respect of the fifteen applicants listed in Appendix 2. Moreover, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the continued examination of the case in respect of these applicants.
37. In the light of the foregoing, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, decides to strike out the case in so far as it concerns the fifteen applicants listed in Appendix 2.
38. The Russian Government submitted that the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies before the “MRT” courts, the Moldovan courts or the Russian courts. The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018). Since no new arguments have been put forward by the Russian Government, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in this case. It follows that the Russian Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must also be dismissed.
39. Lastly, the Court notes that the application lodged by the remaining thirty-two applicants (see Appendix 3) is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court therefore declares it admissible.MeritsThe parties’ submissions
40. The applicants argued that by being prevented from obtaining access to the land they owned in 2004 to 2006 and subsequently being forced to enter into lease agreements, the “MRT” authorities had breached their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submitted that while the land had not been formally expropriated, their property rights had been limited in a manner similar to that of Cypriot citizens who had lost access to their property under the effective control of the self-proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, as found by the Court in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits) 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI). Moreover, their property had lost much of its value because of the limits on its use. Since the facts of the case were similar with those in Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, 17 July 2018), the applicants invited the Court to find a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the same manner as it had done in that case.
41. The Moldovan Government submitted that the merits of the complaint were closely related to the jurisdictional issue and to the extent to which Moldova had carried out its positive obligations under the Convention. They did not make any additional arguments concerning this complaint.
42. The Russian Government did not submit any observations concerning the merits of the case.The Court’s assessment
43. The Court notes that the parties did not dispute the fact that the applicants’ land constituted possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further notes that it is similarly undisputed that the “MRT” authorities created obstacles to the applicants’ unrestricted use of their land. They obliged the applicants to enter into lease agreements, even though they owned the land. When the applicants refused to sign agreements, the authorities between 2004 and 2006 blocked access to their land. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was a clear interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While this interference does not amount to a deprivation of property or control of use of property, the Court considers that the applicants’ inability to farm their land falls to be considered under the first rule mentioned above, namely the general principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Loizidou, cited above, § 63).
44. The Court reiterates that the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful (see, among other authorities, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999‑II). The measure must also be proportionate to the aim pursued; however, it is only necessary to examine the proportionality of an interference once its lawfulness has been established (see Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, § 43, 6 June 2002).
45. As far as the lawfulness of the interference is concerned, no elements in the present case allow the Court to consider that there was a legal basis for interfering with the rights of the applicants guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016, and Pădureţ v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017).
46. In those circumstances, the Court concludes that the interference was not lawful under domestic law. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
47. The Court must next determine whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants’ rights (see paragraph 23 above). In Mozer, the Court held that Moldova’s positive obligations related both to measures needed to re-establish its control over the Transdniestrian territory, as an expression of its jurisdiction, and to measures to ensure respect for individual applicants’ rights (see Mozer, cited above, § 151).
48. As regards the first aspect of Moldova’s obligations, to re-establish control, the Court found in Mozer that, from the onset of the hostilities in 1991 and 1992 until July 2010, Moldova had taken all the measures in its power (ibid., § 152). Since the events complained of in the present case took place before the end of that period, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (ibid.).
49. Turning to the second aspect of the positive obligations, namely to ensure respect for the applicants’ rights, the Court notes the efforts made by the Moldovan authorities both in securing access to the relevant land and in compensating those affected by the restrictions imposed by the “MRT” (see paragraph 17 above). Having regard to the material in the case file, it considers that the Republic of Moldova took whatever steps it could in order to secure the applicants’ rights (see Mozer, cited above, § 154).
50. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Republic of Moldova did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations in respect of the applicants. There has therefore been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.
51. As far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court has established that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period in question (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In the light of this conclusion, and in accordance with its case-law, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Russia exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration (ibid., § 157). By virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, Russia’s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicants’ rights.
52. In conclusion, and having found that the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been breached (see paragraph 46 above), the Court holds that there has been a violation of that provision by the Russian Federation.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
53. The applicants further complained that they had had no effective remedy available to them in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”Admissibility
54. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a). It further notes that, in the light of its findings (see paragraphs 30 to 38 above) it is not inadmissible on any other grounds in respect of the applicants whose complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been declared admissible. It must therefore be declared admissible.
55. As far as the applicants indicated in Appendix 2 are concerned, the Court considers that, for the same reasons as those indicated earlier (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above), this part of the application should also be struck out of the list of cases.Merits
56. The applicants submitted that they had had no means of asserting their rights in the face of the actions of the “MRT” authorities.
57. The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.
58. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy by which to complain of a breach of the Convention rights and freedoms. Therefore, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision, there must be a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 of the Convention varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint under the Convention, but the remedy must in any event be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the State (see Mozer, cited above, § 207; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 268, 15 December 2016; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 179, 23 February 2017). However, Article 13 of the Convention requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see Mozer, § 207, and De Tommaso, § 180, both cited above).
59. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention was arguable.
60. As far as the applicants complained against Moldova, the Court notes that the Moldovan Government did not point to the existence of any effective remedy under Moldovan domestic law.
61. As far as the applicants complained against Russia, the Court also notes that there is no indication in the case file, and the Russian Government have not claimed, that any effective remedies were available to the applicants in the “MRT” in respect of the above-mentioned complaints.
62. The Court therefore concludes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Consequently, the Court must decide whether any violation of Article 13 of the Convention can be attributed to either of the respondent States.
63. As far as the responsibility of Moldova is concerned, the Court reiterates that the “remedies” which this State must offer to applicants consist of enabling them to inform the Moldovan authorities of the details of their situation and to be kept informed of the various legal and diplomatic actions taken by these authorities (see Mozer, cited above, § 214). In Mozer, it concluded, among other things, that Moldova had made procedures available to the applicant commensurate with its limited ability to protect the applicant’s rights, and had thus fulfilled its positive obligations (ibid., § 216). In the present case, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (see Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018). Accordingly, it finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by Moldova.
64. As far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, for the same reasons as those given in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and in the absence of any submissions by the Russian Government as to any remedies available to the applicants, the Court concludes that there has been a violation by the Russian Federation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Mozer, § 218, and Mangîr and Others, § 72, both cited above).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
65. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”Damage
66. The applicants claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be paid by Russia. They indicated that that was the amount awarded by the Court in the case of Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, which was similar to their case. They did not claim any compensation from the Republic of Moldova.
67. The Russian Government contended that the case was inadmissible and asked the Court to dismiss the claims for non-pecuniary damage.
68. Having regard to its finding of a violation of the applicants’ rights by the Russian Federation, the Court considers that an award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage is justified in this case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 1,500 to each applicant.Costs and expenses
69. The applicants also claimed EUR 4,000 jointly for costs and expenses, to be paid by the Russian Government. They did not claim any compensation from the Republic of Moldova.
70. The Russian Government considered that claim excessive and unsubstantiated and asked the Court to dismiss it.
71. The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Mozer, cited above, § 240). Having regard to all the relevant factors and to Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court awards the amount claimed in full.Default interest
72. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to strike out the part of the application concerning the applicants listed in Appendix 2;Declares the application in respect of the applicants listed in Appendix 3 admissible;Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Russian Federation;Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Russian Federation;Holds
(a) that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants listed in Appendix 3, within three months, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant;
(ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 February 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Ivana Jelić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX I - List of all the applicants
Successor, if applicable
No
Last Name
First Name
Sex
Date of Birth
State of Birth
Nat.
Address
Demise
Last Name
First Name
1
Agatieva
Ana
F
22/11/1950
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ana Agatieva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
2
Alexandrova
Elizaveta
F
24/05/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Elizaveta Alexandrova
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
3
Alexeev
Alexei
M
23/04/1968
MDA
MDA
Dlui Alexei Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
4
Alexeev
Victor
M
23/06/1964
MDA
MDA
Dlui Victor Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
5
Alexeev
Victoria
F
29/12/1979
MDA
MDA
Dnei Victoria Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
6
Alexeeva
Maria
F
14/08/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
7
Alexeeva
Tamara
F
08/05/1961
MDA
MDA
Dnei Tamara Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
8
Alexeeva
Parascovia
F
05/04/1935
MDA
MDA
Dnei Parascovia Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
9
Andreev
Iurie
M
24/04/1964
MDA
MDA
Dlui Iurie Andreev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
10
Barabaș
Mariana
F
31/07/1990
MDA
MDA
Dnei Mariana BARABAŞ
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
11
Beșleaga
Liuba
F
07/03/1929
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liuba Beșleaga
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
12
Bușnița
Ana
F
05/03/1954
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ana Bușnița
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
13
Carpov
Ala
F
23/09/1967
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ala Carpov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
14
Carpov
Raisa
F
16/11/1964
MDA
MDA
Dnei Raisa Carpov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
15
Cebotari
Anna
F
07/11/1934
MDA
MDA
Dnei Anna Cebotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
16
Cebotari
Vladimir
M
07/04/1965
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vladimir Cebotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
17
Celonenco
Andrei
M
10/12/1959
MDA
MDA
Dlui Andrei Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
18
Celonenco
Mihail
M
10/10/1927
MDA
MDA
Dlui Mihail Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
19
Celonenco
Olga
F
18/11/1939
MDA
MDA
Dnei Olga Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
20
Celonenco
Iulia
F
30/08/1944
MDA
MDA
Dnei Iulia Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
21
Cibotari
Liuba
F
10/04/1951
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liuba Cibotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
22
Cobzari
Simion
M
12/09/1951
MDA
MDA
Dlui Simion COBZARI
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
23
Cobzari
Profira
F
05/06/1954
MDA
MDA
Dnei Profira Cobzari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
24
Condrova
Liubovi
F
01/01/1929
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Condrova
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
25
Cuciuc
Vasile
M
20/03/1966
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vasile Cuciuc
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
26
Cuciuc
Lidia
F
07/06/1951
MDA
MDA
Dnei Lidia Cuciuc
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
27
Driga
Ştefan
M
15/08/1958
MDA
MDA
Dlui Stepan Driga
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
28
Florea
Valentin
M
06/06/1952
MDA
MDA
Dlui Valentin Florea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
29
Florea
Parascovia
F
02/10/1935
MDA
MDA
Dnei Parascovia Florea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
30
Gațcan
Vasile
M
26/05/1949
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vasile Gațcan
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
31
Gațcan
Elizaveta
F
01/07/1947
MDA
MDA
Dnei Elizaveta Gațcan
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
32
Gavrilaș
Anatalia
F
16/08/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Anatalia Gavrilaș
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
33
Gavrilița
Maia
F
09/05/1964
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maia Gavrilița
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
34
Gazea
Maria
F
13/01/1936
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
35
Gazea
Dumitru
M
13/03/1966
MDA
MDA
Dlui Dumitru Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
Gazea
Liudmila
36
Gazea
Maria
F
10/10/1939
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
37
Gazea
Anatolie
M
05/11/1960
MDA
MDA
Dlui Anatoli Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
38
Gazea
Alexandra
F
10/08/1933
MDA
MDA
Dnei Alexandra Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
39
Isacov
Victor
M
18/05/1939
MDA
MDA
Dlui Victor Isacov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
40
Jitari
Eudochia
F
23/04/1972
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eudochia Jitari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
41
Mardari
Tatiana
F
29/03/1962
MDA
MDA
Dnei Tatiana Mardari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
42
Nedostup
Boris
M
08/07/1970
MDA
MDA
Dlui Boris Nedostup
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
43
Nedostup
Oleg
M
18/04/1974
MDA
MDA
Dlui Oleg Nedostup
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
Nedostup
Boris
44
Oprea
Petru
M
26/02/1949
MDA
MDA
Dlui Petru OPREA
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
45
Oprea
Valentina
F
29/07/1966
MDA
MDA
Dnei Valentina Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
46
Oprea
Eudochia
F
04/06/1973
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eudochia Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
47
Oprea
Nicolae
M
03/03/1953
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
48
Reul
Eugenia
F
01/05/1938
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eugenia Reul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
49
Reul
Veronica
F
05/02/1949
MDA
MDA
Dnei Veronica Reul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
50
Roșca
Vladimir
M
28/11/1953
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vladimir ROŞCA
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
51
Smochina
Nicolae
M
15/09/1976
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Smochina
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
52
Tihnean
Liubovi
F
05/12/1950
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Tihnean
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
53
Timuş
Valentin
M
23/06/1972
MDA
MDA
Dlui Valentin Timuş
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
54
Timuș
Dumitru
M
27/08/1956
MDA
MDA
Dlui Dumitru Timuș
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
55
Ursul
Liuba
F
29/10/1963
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Ursul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
56
Voinschi
Nicolae
M
20/02/1959
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Voinschi
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
57
Voinschi
Nadejda
F
27/02/1963
MDA
MDA
Dnei Nadejda Voinschii
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
APPENDIX II - List of the applicants in respect of whom the application is to be struck out
No
Last Name
First Name
Sex
Date of Birth
State of Birth
Nat.
Address
Demise
1
Alexandrova
Elizaveta
F
24/05/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Elizaveta Alexandrova
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
2
Celonenco
Mihail
M
10/10/1927
MDA
MDA
Dlui Mihail Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
3
Celonenco
Iulia
F
30/08/1944
MDA
MDA
Dnei Iulia Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
4
Cobzari
Simion
M
12/09/1951
MDA
MDA
Dlui Simion COBZARI
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
5
Cobzari
Profira
F
05/06/1954
MDA
MDA
Dnei Profira Cobzari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
6
Condrova
Liubovi
F
01/01/1929
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Condrova
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
7
Florea
Parascovia
F
02/10/1935
MDA
MDA
Dnei Parascovia Florea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
8
Gațcan
Vasile
M
26/05/1949
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vasile Gațcan
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
9
Gavrilaș
Anatalia
F
16/08/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Anatalia Gavrilaș
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
10
Isacov
Victor
M
18/05/1939
MDA
MDA
Dlui Victor Isacov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
11
Reul
Eugenia
F
01/05/1938
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eugenia Reul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
12
Reul
Veronica
F
05/02/1949
MDA
MDA
Dnei Veronica Reul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
13
Roșca
Vladimir
M
28/11/1953
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vladimir ROŞCA
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
14
Tihnean
Liubovi
F
05/12/1950
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Tihnean
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
15
Timuș
Dumitru
M
27/08/1956
MDA
MDA
Dlui Dumitru Timuș
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Demised
APPENDIX III - list of applicants in respect of whom the application is admissible
Successor, if applicable
No
Last Name
First Name
Sex
Date of Birth
State of Birth
Nat.
Address
Last Name
First Name
1
Agatieva
Ana
F
22/11/1950
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ana Agatieva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
2
Alexeev
Alexei
M
23/04/1968
MDA
MDA
Dlui Alexei Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
3
Alexeev
Victor
M
23/06/1964
MDA
MDA
Dlui Victor Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
4
Alexeev
Victoria
F
29/12/1979
MDA
MDA
Dnei Victoria Alexeev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
5
Alexeeva
Maria
F
14/08/1930
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
6
Alexeeva
Tamara
F
08/05/1961
MDA
MDA
Dnei Tamara Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
7
Alexeeva
Parascovia
F
05/04/1935
MDA
MDA
Dnei Parascovia Alexeeva
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
8
Andreev
Iurie
M
24/04/1964
MDA
MDA
Dlui Iurie Andreev
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
9
Barabaș
Mariana
F
31/07/1990
MDA
MDA
Dnei Mariana BARABAŞ
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
10
Beșleaga
Liuba
F
07/03/1929
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liuba Beșleaga
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
11
Bușnița
Ana
F
05/03/1954
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ana Bușnița
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
12
Carpov
Ala
F
23/09/1967
MDA
MDA
Dnei Ala Carpov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
13
Carpov
Raisa
F
16/11/1964
MDA
MDA
Dnei Raisa Carpov
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
14
Cebotari
Anna
F
07/11/1934
MDA
MDA
Dnei Anna Cebotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
15
Cebotari
Vladimir
M
07/04/1965
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vladimir Cebotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
16
Celonenco
Andrei
M
10/12/1959
MDA
MDA
Dlui Andrei Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
17
Celonenco
Olga
F
18/11/1939
MDA
MDA
Dnei Olga Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
18
Celonenco
Iulia
F
01/01/1939
MDA
MDA
Dnei Iulia Celonenco
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
19
Cibotari
Liuba
F
10/04/1951
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liuba Cibotari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
20
Cuciuc
Vasile
M
20/03/1966
MDA
MDA
Dlui Vasile Cuciuc
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
21
Cuciuc
Lidia
F
07/06/1951
MDA
MDA
Dnei Lidia Cuciuc
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
22
Driga
Stepan
M
15/08/1958
MDA
MDA
Dlui Stepan Driga
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
23
Florea
Valentin
M
06/06/1952
MDA
MDA
Dlui Valentin Florea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
24
Gațcan
Elizaveta
F
01/07/1947
MDA
MDA
Dnei Elizaveta Gațcan
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
25
Gavrilița
Maia
F
09/05/1964
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maia Gavrilița
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
26
Gazea
Maria
F
13/01/1936
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
27
Gazea
Dumitru
M
13/03/1966
MDA
MDA
Dlui Dumitru Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Gazea
Liudmila
28
Gazea
Maria
F
10/10/1939
MDA
MDA
Dnei Maria Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
29
Gazea
Anatoli
M
05/11/1960
MDA
MDA
Dlui Anatoli Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
30
Gazea
Alexandra
F
10/08/1933
MDA
MDA
Dnei Alexandra Gazea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
31
Jitari
Eudochia
F
23/04/1972
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eudochia Jitari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
32
Mardari
Tatiana
F
29/03/1962
MDA
MDA
Dnei Tatiana Mardari
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
33
Nedostup
Boris
M
08/07/1970
MDA
MDA
Dlui Boris Nedostup
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
34
Nedostup
Oleg
M
18/04/1974
MDA
MDA
Dlui Oleg Nedostup
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Nedostup
Boris
35
Oprea
Petru
M
26/02/1949
MDA
MDA
Dlui Petru OPREA
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
36
Oprea
Valentina
F
29/07/1966
MDA
MDA
Dnei Valentina Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
37
Oprea
Eudochia
F
04/06/1973
MDA
MDA
Dnei Eudochia Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
38
Oprea
Nicolae
M
03/03/1953
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Oprea
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
39
Smochina
Nicolae
M
15/09/1976
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Smochina
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
40
Ursul
Liubovi
F
29/10/1963
MDA
MDA
Dnei Liubovi Ursul
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
41
Voinschi
Nicolae
M
20/02/1959
MDA
MDA
Dlui Nicolae Voinschi
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
42
Voinschii
Nadejda
F
27/02/1963
MDA
MDA
Dnei Nadejda Voinschii
sat Molovata Nouă
r-n Dubăsari
Rep. Moldova
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy