Published on 7 June 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 40836/15
Serghei ILCENCO and Nicolae ILCENCO
against the Republic of Moldova and Russia
lodged on 7 August 2015
communicated on 20 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the detention of the first applicant, who is a journalist, on charges of incitement to extremism and the search of his home and of the home of his son, the second applicant, in the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) .
The first applicant complains that his detention during four months had been in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and that the conditions of his detention, including lack of necessary medical assistance, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains under Article 13 about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his grievances under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention about being unable to communicate confidentially with his lawyer. He further complains under Article 10 that the charges brought against him, his detention and the removal of all paper and pen from his cell were meant to silence him as a journalist. He also complains under Article 34 of the Convention about being prevented to lodge an application with the Court while in detention. Both applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the searches carried out in their homes and seizure of personal belongings.
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 Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was the first applicant held in inhuman and/or degrading conditions of detention and was he provided with medical assistance required by his state of health (see, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 107-184, 23 February 2016)?
3. Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)?
4. Do the facts of the case attest to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant, notably on account of being unable to meet his lawyer confidentially (Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §46, Series A no. 233)?
5. In respect of the first applicant, has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018)?
6. In respect of the first applicant, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention?
7. Given the first applicant’s allegation about the interference with his correspondence by the administration of the detention facility and about the removal of all paper and pen from his cell, has there been any hindrance in the present case with the effective exercise of his right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (mutatis mutandis, Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 76957/01, §§ 64-67, 17 October 2017)?
8. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, notably on account of the alleged unlawful searches (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)?
APPENDIX
\* MERGEFORMAT
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Serghei ILCENCO
1959
Moldovan, Russian
Tiraspol
2.
Nicolae ILCENCO
1993
Moldovan
Tiraspol
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy