Published on 17 June 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 965/23
Mykola Oleksiyovych CHAUS
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 9 December 2022
communicated on 30 May 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s abduction from the Republic of Moldova, allegedly by Ukrainian authorities and with the alleged assistance or condoning by the Moldovan authorities. He subsequently found himself in Ukraine, without having lawfully crossed the border. He was allegedly ill‑treated both during his abduction and after his arrival in Ukraine.
The applicant is a Ukrainian citizen and a former judge of that country. He claims that he was subjected to persecution to force him to make statements against a former president of Ukraine, after which he fled to the Republic of Moldova, entering it illegally in 2016. Another version he mentioned was that he had been forcefully brought to the Republic of Moldova. He gave himself up to the Moldovan authorities and after an initial arrest and later house arrest, he was subsequently free to move and awaited a decision on his asylum application.
On 3 April 2021 he and his bodyguard were abducted in Chișinău by several men in the middle of the day and in public. Despite being immediately warned about the abduction, having soon discovered the bodyguard in an abandoned car and learned from him details about the abduction, the authorities did not prevent his removal from the country and to Ukraine in the trunk of a car. A parliamentary investigation commission set up to deal with this abduction confirmed the lack of effective cooperation by the Ukrainian side and that a Ukrainian military attaché may have been involved in smuggling the applicant out of the country in a diplomatic car. It also established a lack of cooperation among various Moldovan authorities, including the Border Police, some unusual and unexplained actions of the Security and Information Service, the outdated character of the protocol for dealing with such situations and the absence of a legal basis for sanctioning those Moldovan officials who had refused to cooperate with the commission.
A criminal investigation into the applicant’s abduction was started on 3 April 2021 and resulted in the conviction of one Moldovan national who had given logistical assistance to the other suspects, some of whom were identified as Ukrainian nationals. He was convicted to four years’ imprisonment, two of which were suspended. The investigation into the actions of the other suspects was pending before the prosecutor’s office at the time of lodging of the present application.
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was beaten at the moment of his abduction and that his health was endangered by the abduction and illegal transfer to another country, where he risked and in fact suffered further ill-treatment. Moreover, the investigation into his complaint about this treatment was formal and inefficient. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was not issued official identity documents as an asylum seeker so as to allow him to lead a normal life in the Republic of Moldova and about the fact that his abduction interfered with his family life, since he was separated from his family. The applicant further complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints, contrary to Article 13.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s health subjected to a risk during his abduction? Was he beaten at the moment of his abduction, on the territory of the Republic of Moldova? Did the Moldovan authorities authorise or condone the abduction? Did they take all reasonable measures to prevent his removal from the country to Ukraine, where he allegedly risked ill-treatment? Did they carry out an effective investigation into the allegations made by the applicant (El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012)?
2. Did the applicant exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 8? Was the applicant issued official documents by the Moldovan authorities for the period during which he awaited a decision on his asylum request? Has there been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant’s abduction and resulting separation from his family, as well as the alleged failure to issue official identity documents as an asylum seeker, interfere with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life and in that case, was it lawful and necessary within the meaning of that provision (Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, §§ 664-666, 31 May 2018, and Ozdil and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 42305/18, §§ 60-72, 11 June 2019)?
3. Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3 or 8 (Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, §§ 546-551, 24 July 2014)?