Published on 7 June 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 49508/15
Alexandru ZUBCO
against the Republic of Moldova and Russia
lodged on 19 September 2015
communicated on 17 May 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the ban imposed on the applicant who was born in Transdniestria, to enter the Transdniestrian region of Moldova on account of his human rights activities and of the stand taken by him in respect of the alleged violations of human rights in the region. The applicant attempted to challenge the ban in the Transdniestrian courts but without any success, and without being able to attend the court hearings.
The applicant claims that his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, was breached. He also claims that there has been a further breach of Article 8 of the Convention because he could not visit his family. He also complains that there has been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention because the ban was imposed on him on account of his statements about the alleged breaches of human rights. In the applicant’s opinion, the ban imposed on him constituted a further breach of his freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He finally argues that there has also been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant 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. Did the applicant have a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Sobco and Ghent v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 3060/07 and 45533/09, 18 June 2019)?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (Z v. Finland, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑I)?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008)?
5. Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 (Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, 13 December 2018)?
6. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 8, 10 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy