URUSBIEV A OSTATNÍ proti Moldavsku

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF URUSBIEV AND OTHERS
v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 33519/15 and 4 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Urusbiev and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Kateřina Šimáčková, President,
María Elósegui,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of Moldova and Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice to the Moldovan and Russian Governments (“the Governments”) of applications nos. 558/16 and 862/16 and of the complaints in the appended table in the rest of the applications, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicants’ deprivation of liberty and detention in inadequate material conditions in the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (the “MRT” – for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII).

2. The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention of unlawful deprivation of liberty, inadequate conditions of detention and a lack of medical assistance. Certain applicants also complained of a violation of their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention of their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, and of their right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The applicants also relied on Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

3. The facts of the case and details of the applicants’ complaints are summarised in the appended table.

RELEVANT MATERIAL

4. The relevant material has been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-67, 23 February 2016) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 48-67, 20 February 2024).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
   1. Joinder of the applications

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. The Court’s jurisdiction and consequences of the Russian Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present case (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, § 73, 17 January 2023, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 68).

7. The Court notes that the Russian Government have not made any submissions as to the admissibility and merits of applications nos. 862/16 and 40836/15 and have not made any further submissions in respect of any of the applications, except application no. 83954/17. By failing to submit observations, the Russian Federation manifested an intention to abstain from participating in the examination of the relevant applications. The cessation of a Contracting Party’s membership in the Council of Europe does not release it from its duty to cooperate with the Convention bodies. Consequently, the Russian Government’s failure to engage in the proceedings cannot constitute an obstacle to the examination of the case (see Svetova and Others v. Russia, no. 54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023). The Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate where a party fails to participate effectively in the proceedings (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court).

3. Continued examination of application no. 862/16

8. On 30 May 2025 the legal representative of the applicant in application no. 862/16 informed the Court that he had lost contact with the applicant and his wife, despite several attempts to contact them. The lawyer submitted that the Court should nonetheless continue the examination of the application and argued that the applicant’s lack of contact could be the result of his fear of criminal prosecution under the “MRT Criminal Code” for lodging a complaint with the Court.

9. The respondent Governments did not comment on that issue, nor did they request that the case be struck out of the list for that reason.

10. The Court notes that in some cases in which the applicant’s representative had lost touch with his or her client, it found that such a situation might warrant striking the application out of the list under Article 37 § 1. The lack of contact was sometimes taken as an indication that the applicant no longer wished to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) (see N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, § 73, 13 February 2020, and the references therein).

11. In the present case, the existence of criminal‑law provisions purportedly enacted by the “MRT” authorities in 2022 to criminalise “deliberately false complaints with the law-enforcement agencies of other States” (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 67) certainly has a “chilling effect” on the exercise of the right of individual petition of applicants and their representatives. In this context, the Court is not convinced that the absence of contact with the applicant leads to the conclusion that he no longer wishes to pursue the application.

12. However, even if that were the case, the Court may continue its examination “if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires” (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

13. The Court observes that the present application refers to the applicant’s detention in the unrecognised region of Transnistria in the Republic of Moldova under the orders of unrecognised de facto courts and to allegations under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. Although the legal issues raised by the application in question are ones on which the Court has developed well-established case-law, it notes that the protection of human rights in such areas of Europe is an important issue which is also at stake in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, N.D. and N.T., cited above, §§ 74‑79).

14. In view of the foregoing, the Court is not convinced that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application. In any event, it considers that special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto require it to continue the examination of the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention.

4. New complaints in application no. 862/16

15. In his observations of 30 May 2025, the applicant’s representative raised further complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the applicant’s allegedly unlawful detention between 17 and 19 April 2013 in inadequate conditions.

16. However, the Court notes that those complaints were only submitted on 30 May 2025, which is more than six months after the date on which the applicant was released. Accordingly, they must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑compliance with the six‑month time‑limit.

17. The respondent Governments did not comment on those grievances.

18. The Court notes that the grievances concerning the applicant’s detention in 2013 were explicitly raised for the first time in his submissions of 30 May 2025, made in reply to the Governments’ observations. The Court notes that those grievances do not constitute an elaboration or elucidation of the applicant’s original complaints, which concern his detention from 2015 onward. The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to examine these new complaints within the context of the present application (see, for a recent example, Komissarov v. the Czech Republic, no. 20611/17, §§ 34-37, 3 February 2022).

2. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

19. The respondent Russian Government submitted that the complaints of the applicants in applications nos. 33519/15, 558/16 and 83954/17 in respect of the Russian Federation fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction because the acts had taken place within the “MRT”, which did not fall under the responsibility of the Russian Federation.

20. The Court notes that it has considered the Russian Government’s objections of inadmissibility ratione loci and ratione temporis in previous cases and rejected them (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 81-95, and, as a more recent example, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 74-84). The facts of the present case concern the same period of time as the facts of Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 42224/11, §§ 11‑35, 9 May 2017) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 86-87). In the absence of any information attesting to a change to the situation found in its previous judgments, the Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from those cited above. The Court therefore concludes that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction.

21. In respect of applications nos. 33519/15 and 83954/17, the respondent Moldovan Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies before the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova, arguing, inter alia, that the applicants could have requested compensation in the national courts for the alleged violations. The Court notes that a similar objection has been dismissed in the past (ibid., §§ 101-03) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

22. The Court therefore dismisses the respondent Governments’ preliminary objections.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 and article 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

23. The applicants complained that they had been detained in inadequate conditions without medical assistance, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and that their deprivation of liberty ordered by the de facto “MRT courts” had been unlawful and contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (for the details of each complaint, see the appended table).

24. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

25. The applicants were detained in various detention facilities in the “MRT” for periods of time ranging from several days to over three years. They described the detention facilities as being infested with parasites, unsanitary, humid and overcrowded, and lacking access to ventilation, daylight and a sufficient supply of food and drinking water.

26. The Moldovan Government argued that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on their part because they had fulfilled their positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants’ rights. As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, they submitted that they had had difficulties assessing the applicants’ situation on account of their lack of effective control over the “MRT”.

27. The Russian Government did not make any specific comments regarding these complaints and argued that they had no jurisdiction in respect of the “MRT”. They submitted general information about its legal framework and judicial organisation.

28. As regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court has already found that the material conditions of detention in the “MRT” police stations and prisons were inadequate at the time of the events (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 180-82; Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 55-56, 9 May 2017; and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 109-11). The applicants’ submissions (see paragraph 25 above and the appended table) are consistent with those findings. In the absence of any information to distinguish the present case from those cited above, the Court concludes that the applicants’ conditions of detention were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In view of this finding, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to examine separately the complaint concerning the lack of medical assistance in detention.

29. Regarding the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court has summarised the general principles concerning the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty in Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, § 125, ECHR 2013). More specifically, the principles regarding the lawfulness of the “MRT courts” while ordering a “lawful arrest” have been summarised in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, § 461), Mozer (cited above, §§ 134-50) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 123-29).

30. The Court has already established that during the period of time in question the judicial system of the “MRT” was not a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention, and that detention orders issued by de facto “MRT courts” could not be considered lawful within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (ibid., § 129). There is no reason for the Court to conclude otherwise in the present case. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

31. In determining whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants’ rights under Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court notes that the events in question took place in 2014-17 – that is, at the same time as the events in Eriomenco (cited above, §§ 11-35) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 12-46) – and that none of the parties submitted any evidence indicating that the Republic of Moldova had changed its position towards the “MRT”. The Court therefore sees no reason to distinguish the present case from those cited above, and concludes that the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligations and that there has been no violation of Article 3 or Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova (ibid., §§ 116 and 131).

32. Turning to the Russian Federation’s responsibility under the Convention, the Court has already found that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period of the applicants’ detention (see paragraph 20 above). In the light of that conclusion and the Court’s case-law, the Court sees no reasons to distinguish the present case from those cited above and concludes that Russia’s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicants’ rights under the relevant provisions (Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 117 and 132).

33. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION

34. The first applicant in application no. 40836/15 alleged that the “MRT” authorities had hindered the effective exercise of his right of application under Article 34 of the Convention by depriving him of any pen and paper while in prison in the “MRT” and by subjecting all his correspondence, including that with his lawyer, to “censorship”.

35. The respondent Governments did not comment on this point.

36. Taking into account the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see in paragraph 40 below) that audio- and video-recordings of the meetings with his lawyer had been made, that he had been prevented from writing any letters by himself and that, even if he had been able to do so, his correspondence would have been subjected to censorship (see Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, § 29, 6 December 2005), the Court finds that the applicant’s right of application was hindered (see Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 102-08).

37. For the same reasons as those formulated in its examination of the complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 31 above), the Court holds that the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

38. For the same reasons as those set out in paragraph 32 above, the Court considers that the Russian Federation failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE‑LAW

39. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

40. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of the Court’s case‑law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the unlawful conviction of an individual by the “MRT courts” (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 119-32); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to an unlawful home search and the seizure of personal belongings (see Vardanean v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, §§ 50-57, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the surveillance of communications with a lawyer (see Alimpiev v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee], no. 48802/08, §§ 58-62, 27 April 2021); a violation of Article 8 with regard to the impossibility of returning home (see Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 252-61, ECHR 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Cravcișin v. the Republic of Moldovan and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, §§ 43‑47, 28 September 2021); a violation of Article 10 of the Convention with regard to restrictions on journalists’ right to freedom of expression (see Coliban v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 5216/13, §§ 63-68, 30 November 2021); a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with other provisions as listed in the appended table with regard to the absence of effective domestic remedies in the “MRT” (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 207-18); and a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by “MRT” authorities (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 41660/10 and 5 others, §§ 90-99, 3 September 2019).

41. In respect of those violations, as noted in paragraphs 31-33 above, the Court was not presented with any new information enabling it to reach a different conclusion concerning the responsibility of the respondent Governments for the violations found.

42. Accordingly, the Court finds that Moldova fulfilled its positive obligations under the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto and that there has been no breach of the provisions in question by the Republic of Moldova. As concerns the Russian Federation, for the same reasons mentioned above, the Court finds that Russia is responsible for the breaches of the relevant provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.

6. OTHER COMPLAINTS

43. The applicants also complained under Article 5 § 3, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, and Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as described in the appended table. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case (see paragraphs 31-33 and 42 above) and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

44. The applicants claimed the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses.

45. The Moldovan Government submitted that the amounts claimed were exaggerated and unsubstantiated. The Russian Government invited the Court to make an award in accordance with its established case-law.

46. The Court notes that it has not found any violation of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova in the present case. Accordingly, no award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage or costs and expenses is to be made as regards that respondent State.

47. Having regard to the violations by the Russian Federation found above and to the documents in its possession, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid by the Russian Federation. It dismisses the remainder of the claims.

48. In applications nos. 558/16 and 83954/17, the amounts awarded in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid directly to the applicants’ representatives.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that the facts complained of by the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova;
3. Holds that the facts complained of by the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in so far as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022, and dismisses the Russian Government’s objections of incompatibility ratione personae and ratione loci;
4. Dismisses the Moldovan Government’s objections of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;
5. Decides to continue the examination of application no. 862/16 under Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention;
6. Declares the complaints under Article 3, Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1, Article 8, Article 10, Article 13 and Article 34 of the Convention and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention admissible;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, and no violation by the Republic of Moldova;
8. Holds that the Russian Government failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant in application no. 40836/15;
9. Holds that the Moldovan Government did not fail to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant in application no. 40836/15;
10. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table) by the Russian Federation, and no violation by the Republic of Moldova;
11. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
12. Holds

(a) that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; and

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the indicated amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

13. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Martina Keller Kateřina Šimáčková
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: