ZUBCO A OSTATNÍ proti Moldavsku, Rusku

FIFTH SECTION

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

(Applications nos. 49508/15 and 2 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

19 February 2026

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

In the case of Zubco 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 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 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 the applications listed in the appended table;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 January 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case mainly concerns restrictions on the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” on the territory of the Republic of Moldova (the “MRT” – for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) as a result of measures and decisions taken by the “MRT” authorities. Several applicants also submitted that they had been deprived of their liberty by the “MRT” authorities.

2. The applicants complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention of restrictions on their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Certain applicants also complained that they had been detained unlawfully and in inadequate conditions (contrary to Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention) and that their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention had been violated. The applicants also relied on Articles 6 and 13 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 application no. 79438/17 and have not made any further submissions in respect of any of the applications (except application no. 59220/18). By failing to submit observations, the Russian Federation indicated its 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).

2. ADMISSIBILITY
   1. Preliminary objections

8. The respondent Russian Government submitted that the complaints of the applicants in applications nos. 49508/15 and 59220/18 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.

9. 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; see also, by way of 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 in 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.

10. In respect of applications nos. 79438/17 and 59220/18, 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.

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

2. Conclusions

12. The Court notes that the applications are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATIONs OF ARTICLES 10 and 11 OF THE CONVENTION

13. The applicants complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention about the following measures: (i) a ban on entering the “MRT” on account of human-rights activities (applications nos. 49508/15 and 79438/17); (ii) the imposition of fines and carrying out of arrests for participating in an unauthorised political meeting (application no. 59220/18 – for the details of each complaint, see the appended table).

14. The Moldovan Government argued that the interferences with the applicants’ rights had not been lawful because they had not been provided for by the domestic laws of the Republic of Moldova. At the same time, they contended that the Moldovan Government had discharged in full their positive obligations in respect of the applicants.

15. 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.

16. The Court finds that the measures described by the applicants (see paragraph 13 above and the appended table) amounted to interferences with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 98-103, 15 November 2018, and Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova, nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16, §§ 28-30, 15 January 2019). For such interferences to be compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, they must conform with the requirements of the second paragraph of those provisions – including that of being “prescribed by law” (see, in respect of Article 10 of the Convention, Beșleagă v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 48108/07, § 57, 2 July 2019; see also, in respect of Article 11 of the Convention, Rîbac and Rodina-Agro S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 28857/14, 15 June 2021).

17. The Court found in Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 127-29) that the “MRT legal system” was not compatible with the Convention and that the “MRT judicial system” was not a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention. In the absence of any new elements to the contrary or any indication that the impugned measures carried out by “MRT” authorities had any basis under Moldovan law, there is nothing in the present case to allow the Court to consider that there was a legal basis for the interference with the applicants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

18. In determining whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the Court notes that the events in question took place in 2013-18 – that is, at the same time as the events in 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 accordingly concludes that the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligations and that there has been no violation of Article 10 or Article 11 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova (ibid., §§ 116 and 131).

19. 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 in question (see paragraph 13 above). In the light of that conclusion and of its case-law, the Court sees no reasons to distinguish the present case from those cited above and therefore concludes that Russia’s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicants’ rights under the relevant provisions (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 117 and 132).

20. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATiONS OF ARTICLE 3 aND ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

21. The applicants complained that they had been detained in inadequate conditions (contrary to Article 3 of the Convention) and that the deprivation of their liberty – as 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).

22. The applicants were detained in detention facilities in the “MRT” for periods of time ranging from 6 to 14 days. They described the detention facilities as being infested with parasites, unsanitary, humid and overcrowded, and as lacking access to ventilation and daylight, a sufficient supply of food and drinking water, and medical assistance.

23. 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”.

24. 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.

25. 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 the above-cited cases of Mozer, §§ 180-82; Eriomenco, §§ 55-56; and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, §§ 109-11). The applicants’ submissions (see paragraph 22 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.

26. 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).

27. 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.

28. For the same reasons as those formulated in its examination of the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see paragraph 18 above), the Court holds 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.

29. For the same reasons as those set out in paragraph 19 above, the Court considers that the Russian Federation failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

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

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

31. 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).

32. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that those complaints also disclose the following violations of the Convention in the light of the its case-law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to criminal convictions by the “MRT courts” (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by the “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); and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention with regard to the absence of domestic remedies (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 156).

33. In respect of those violations (as noted in paragraphs 18-19 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.

34. 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.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

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

36. The respondent Moldovan Government submitted that the amounts claimed were exaggerated and unsubstantiated. The Russian Government did not make any submissions in this regard, except in application no. 59220/18, where they argued that the amounts claimed by the applicants were exaggerated.

37. 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 them, to be paid by the Russian Federation. It dismisses the remainder of the claims.

38. In application no. 59220/18, the amounts awarded in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid directly to the applicants’ representatives.

39. It 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,

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. Declares the applications admissible;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, and no violation by the Republic of Moldova;
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 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;
9. 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;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Martina Keller Kateřina Šimáčková
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: