European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

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

(Application no. 36545/06)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

18 February 2020

 

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

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

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

          Ivana Jelić, President,
          Arnfinn Bårdsen,
          Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 January 2020,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 36545/06) 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 fifty-seven Moldovan nationals on 25 August 2006 (see Appendix 1).

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr A. Postică and Mr I. Manole, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and the Russian Government were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been denied access to their land, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that they had had no effective remedies available to them.

4.  On 27 August 2018 the respondent Governments were given notice of the application.

5.  The Russian Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the objection, the Court rejects it.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6.  The applicants live in Molovata-Nouă (Dubăsari district), a village under Moldovan control on the left bank of the Dniester River.

7.  At the time of lodging their application, the applicants all had titles to nearby plots of land, between 0.3 and 4 hectares in size, which they had obtained from the Moldovan authorities. Their land was on territory controlled by the Moldovan authorities but situated across a road which links the northern and southern parts of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic” (the “MRT”). The road, which cuts through two zones controlled by the Moldovan Government on the left bank of the Dniester River, is controlled by the authorities of the “MRT”. The applicants derived most of their income from working the land owned by them.

8.  Title to some of the land was subsequently transferred to others by sale, gift or inheritance. The details of each applicant are set out in Appendixes 1 and 2.

9.  Between 1992 and 1998 the applicants used the land they owned without interference. In 1998 the “MRT” authorities set up checkpoints in order to monitor the movement of agricultural products across the “border” road. According to the applicants, the checkpoints enabled the “MRT” authorities to subject them to various forms of harassment, such as impeding them from transporting the tools, agricultural machinery, equipment and fuel necessary for the exploitation of their land. Harvesting and transporting the agricultural products became extremely difficult, as the applicants and their family members were often humiliated when stopped at the checkpoints. From then on the applicants also had to pay various taxes and fees to “MRT” authorities, which they agreed to do since their livelihood depended on them working the land located across the road.

10.  On 28 January 2000 the so-called “MRT” government issued a decision “on the regulation of land relations in the Dubăsari district”, compelling owners of plots of land situated across the Rîbnița to Dubăsari road to each enter into a lease agreement with the Dubăsari administration.

11.  In October 2004 the “MRT” authorities declared that the land owned by the applicants was the property of the “MRT”. The applicants could continue working it on the condition that they rented it from the “MRT” local authorities.

12.  In February 2005 the applicants were prevented by the “MRT” authorities from exploiting and farming their land. As a consequence, they sustained losses owing to their inability to use the land at the beginning of the agricultural season. Moreover, the land was not worked in the years that followed, which made it difficult to bring it back to its former state.

13.  According to the applicants, they were threatened with fines, sanctions or being arrested by the “MRT” authorities, unless they could provide proof that they had entered into a lease agreement with the Dubăsari administration. The applicants described instances where the agricultural machinery of those trying to work their land had been seized. The landowners’ plots of land were monitored by the “MRT” military, border guards and militia, who would sanction any attempt to work the land.

14.  The applicants made numerous complaints to the local “MRT” authorities, asking for a right of way to their land and permission to farm it. Their requests were refused since the land in question was considered to be the property of the “MRT”.

15.  The applicants also complained to the Moldovan authorities, who replied that they had no means of compelling the “MRT” authorities to allow them unimpeded access. They asked the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office to start a criminal investigation against the individuals responsible for blocking the applicants’ access to their land.

16.  The applicants complained to the Russian embassy in Moldova and to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (“the OSCE”), but to no avail. On 26 April 2005 a group of landowners, including some of the applicants, protested in front of the Russian embassy in Moldova, asking the authorities to intervene as a guarantor of peace and stability in the region. A similar protest took place on 11 May 2005.

17.  According to the Moldovan Government, the Moldovan Parliament passed a number of laws aimed at compensating the inhabitants of villages under Moldovan control on the left bank of the Dniester River (in the area concerned by the present cases) for losses caused by various actions of the “MRT”. The compensation included differences in natural gas and electricity prices, increasing pensions, giving tax breaks and preferential credits to agricultural companies in the region, and allocating diesel fuel for agricultural activities. Moreover, a number of laws and decisions were implemented between 2004 and 2007 providing for the payment of compensation to villagers who had sustained losses owing to their inability to farm their land in the relevant area, with the total amount of aid reaching almost 39 million Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 2.3 million euros (EUR)). In 2006 the Moldovan authorities managed to negotiate with the “MRT” authorities a temporary “MRT” registration system for owners of land in the relevant area, which allowed them to farm the land and be exempt from making payments to the “MRT”. The temporary registration system is renewed each year in negotiations between Moldova and the “MRT” authorities.

II. RELEVANT NON-CONVENTION MATERIAL

18.  Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).

THE LAW

I. JURISDICTION

19.  The Court must first determine whether, for the purposes of the matters complained of, the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of either or both of the respondent States, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.

A.    The parties’ submissions

20.  The applicants and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction.

21.  For their part, the Russian Government argued that the applicants did not come within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the applications should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation. As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑VII), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012) and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) had been wrong and at variance with public international law.

B.     The Court’s assessment

22.  The general principles concerning the issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention in respect of acts and facts occurring in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova are set out in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, §§ 311-19), Catan and Others (cited above, §§ 103-07) and, more recently, Mozer (cited above, §§ 97-98).

23.  As far as the Republic of Moldova is concerned, the Court notes that in Ilaşcu and Others, Catan and Others and Mozer it found that although Moldova had no effective control over the Transdniestrian region, it followed from the fact that Moldova was the territorial State that people within that territory fell within its jurisdiction. However, its obligation, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, was limited to taking the diplomatic, economic, judicial and other measures that were both in its power and in accordance with international law (see Ilaşcu and Others, § 333; Catan and Others, § 109; and Mozer, § 100; all cited above). Moldova’s obligations under Article 1 of the Convention were found to be positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others, §§ 322 and 330-31; Catan and Others, §§ 109-10; and Mozer, § 99, all cited above).

24.  The Court sees no reason to distinguish the present case from the above-mentioned cases. Besides, it notes that the Moldovan Government have not objected to the Court applying a similar approach in the present case. It therefore finds that Moldova has jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, but that its responsibility for the acts complained of is to be assessed in the light of the above-mentioned positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 335).

25.  As far as the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court notes that in Ilașcu and Others it found that the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in Transdniestria in 1991 to 1992 (see Ilașcu and Others, cited above, § 382). The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until July 2010 the “MRT” had only been able to continue to exist and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region because of Russian military, economic and political support (see Ivanţoc and Others, §§ 116‑20; Catan and Others, §§ 121‑22; and Mozer, §§ 108 and 110, all cited above). The Court concluded in Mozer that the “MRT’s” high level of dependency on Russian support provided a strong indication that the Russian Federation continued to exercise effective control and a decisive influence over the “MRT” authorities, and that the applicants in that case therefore fell within that State’s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 110-11).

26.  The Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from Ilașcu and Others, Ivanţoc and Others, Catan and Others and Mozer (all cited above).

27.  Consequently, it dismisses the Russian Government’s objections ratione personae and ratione loci and holds that the applicants in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation under Article 1 of the Convention.

28.  The Court must therefore determine whether there has been any violation of the applicants’ rights under the Convention such as to engage the responsibility of either respondent State (see Mozer, cited above, § 112).

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

29.  The applicants complained that by not allowing them access to their land or by making it conditional on them paying rent, the “MRT” authorities had breached their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A.    Admissibility

30.  The Moldovan Government submitted that the complaint lodged by twenty-one applicants was inadmissible because they had either disposed of their land by way of sale or gift or had died without there being any heirs wishing to continue the proceedings before the Court.

31.  The applicants submitted that seven of them had disposed of their land after lodging the present application, but had done so because they had been unable to use their land for a long period of time. They argued that since no violation had been acknowledged and no compensation had been paid to them, the seven applicants concerned continued to be victims. The Court agrees that the seven applicants in question have not lost their victim status and dismisses the objection raised by the Moldovan Government.

32.  The applicants further submitted that two applicants had died, and that their heirs wished to continue the proceedings before the Court. In view of the pecuniary nature of the complaints made in the present application, the Court sees no reason to refuse the requests by these heirs. For practical reasons, this judgment will continue to refer to the original applicants as “the applicants”, even though their heirs are now to be regarded as having that status.

33.  Lastly, the applicants confirmed that thirteen applicants had died without there being any heirs wishing to continue the proceedings. Moreover, one applicant could not be traced by the representatives and another had disposed of her land before lodging the application. Accordingly, the applicants’ representatives requested that the Court strike out the application in respect of the above fifteen applicants.

34.  The Court notes that two of the fifteen applicants mentioned above have not provided sufficient information for the Court to be able to continue examining their applications. In addition, thirteen applicants have died and no known successors have expressed the wish to continue with the relevant applications. Both categories of applicants are listed in Appendix 2.

35.  The Court considers that the part of the application lodged by the fifteen applicants in question must be examined in the light of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, which provides:

“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

...

(c)  for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

...”

36.  The Court considers, having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case in respect of the fifteen applicants listed in Appendix 2. Moreover, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the continued examination of the case in respect of these applicants.

37.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, decides to strike out the case in so far as it concerns the fifteen applicants listed in Appendix 2.

38.  The Russian Government submitted that the application should be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies before the “MRT” courts, the Moldovan courts or the Russian courts. The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018). Since no new arguments have been put forward by the Russian Government, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in this case. It follows that the Russian Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must also be dismissed.

39.  Lastly, the Court notes that the application lodged by the remaining thirty-two applicants (see Appendix 3) is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court therefore declares it admissible.

B.     Merits

1.    The parties’ submissions

40.  The applicants argued that by being prevented from obtaining access to the land they owned in 2004 to 2006 and subsequently being forced to enter into lease agreements, the “MRT” authorities had breached their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submitted that while the land had not been formally expropriated, their property rights had been limited in a manner similar to that of Cypriot citizens who had lost access to their property under the effective control of the self-proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, as found by the Court in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits) 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI). Moreover, their property had lost much of its value because of the limits on its use. Since the facts of the case were similar with those in Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 21034/05 and 7 others, 17 July 2018), the applicants invited the Court to find a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the same manner as it had done in that case.

41.  The Moldovan Government submitted that the merits of the complaint were closely related to the jurisdictional issue and to the extent to which Moldova had carried out its positive obligations under the Convention. They did not make any additional arguments concerning this complaint.

42.  The Russian Government did not submit any observations concerning the merits of the case.

2.    The Court’s assessment

43.  The Court notes that the parties did not dispute the fact that the applicants’ land constituted possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further notes that it is similarly undisputed that the “MRT” authorities created obstacles to the applicants’ unrestricted use of their land. They obliged the applicants to enter into lease agreements, even though they owned the land. When the applicants refused to sign agreements, the authorities between 2004 and 2006 blocked access to their land. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was a clear interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. While this interference does not amount to a deprivation of property or control of use of property, the Court considers that the applicants’ inability to farm their land falls to be considered under the first rule mentioned above, namely the general principle of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Loizidou, cited above, § 63).

44.  The Court reiterates that the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful (see, among other authorities, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999‑II). The measure must also be proportionate to the aim pursued; however, it is only necessary to examine the proportionality of an interference once its lawfulness has been established (see Katsaros v. Greece, no. 51473/99, § 43, 6 June 2002).

45.  As far as the lawfulness of the interference is concerned, no elements in the present case allow the Court to consider that there was a legal basis for interfering with the rights of the applicants guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016, and Pădureţ v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 26626/11, § 29, 9 May 2017).

46.  In those circumstances, the Court concludes that the interference was not lawful under domestic law. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

47.  The Court must next determine whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants’ rights (see paragraph 23 above). In Mozer, the Court held that Moldova’s positive obligations related both to measures needed to re-establish its control over the Transdniestrian territory, as an expression of its jurisdiction, and to measures to ensure respect for individual applicants’ rights (see Mozer, cited above, § 151).

48.  As regards the first aspect of Moldova’s obligations, to re-establish control, the Court found in Mozer that, from the onset of the hostilities in 1991 and 1992 until July 2010, Moldova had taken all the measures in its power (ibid., § 152). Since the events complained of in the present case took place before the end of that period, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (ibid.).

49.  Turning to the second aspect of the positive obligations, namely to ensure respect for the applicants’ rights, the Court notes the efforts made by the Moldovan authorities both in securing access to the relevant land and in compensating those affected by the restrictions imposed by the “MRT” (see paragraph 17 above). Having regard to the material in the case file, it considers that the Republic of Moldova took whatever steps it could in order to secure the applicants’ rights (see Mozer, cited above, § 154).

50.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Republic of Moldova did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations in respect of the applicants. There has therefore been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.

51.  As far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court has established that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period in question (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In the light of this conclusion, and in accordance with its case-law, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Russia exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration (ibid., § 157). By virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, Russia’s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicants’ rights.

52.  In conclusion, and having found that the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been breached (see paragraph 46 above), the Court holds that there has been a violation of that provision by the Russian Federation.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

53.  The applicants further complained that they had had no effective remedy available to them in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

A.    Admissibility

54.  The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a). It further notes that, in the light of its findings (see paragraphs 30 to 38 above) it is not inadmissible on any other grounds in respect of the applicants whose complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been declared admissible. It must therefore be declared admissible.

55.  As far as the applicants indicated in Appendix 2 are concerned, the Court considers that, for the same reasons as those indicated earlier (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above), this part of the application should also be struck out of the list of cases.

B.     Merits

56.  The applicants submitted that they had had no means of asserting their rights in the face of the actions of the “MRT” authorities.

57.  The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.

58.  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy by which to complain of a breach of the Convention rights and freedoms. Therefore, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision, there must be a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 of the Convention varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint under the Convention, but the remedy must in any event be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the State (see Mozer, cited above, § 207; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 268, 15 December 2016; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 179, 23 February 2017). However, Article 13 of the Convention requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see Mozer, § 207, and De Tommaso, § 180, both cited above).

59.  The Court observes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention was arguable.

60.  As far as the applicants complained against Moldova, the Court notes that the Moldovan Government did not point to the existence of any effective remedy under Moldovan domestic law.

61.  As far as the applicants complained against Russia, the Court also notes that there is no indication in the case file, and the Russian Government have not claimed, that any effective remedies were available to the applicants in the “MRT” in respect of the above-mentioned complaints.

62.  The Court therefore concludes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Consequently, the Court must decide whether any violation of Article 13 of the Convention can be attributed to either of the respondent States.

63.  As far as the responsibility of Moldova is concerned, the Court reiterates that the “remedies” which this State must offer to applicants consist of enabling them to inform the Moldovan authorities of the details of their situation and to be kept informed of the various legal and diplomatic actions taken by these authorities (see Mozer, cited above, § 214). In Mozer, it concluded, among other things, that Moldova had made procedures available to the applicant commensurate with its limited ability to protect the applicant’s rights, and had thus fulfilled its positive obligations (ibid., § 216). In the present case, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (see Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018). Accordingly, it finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by Moldova.

64.  As far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, for the same reasons as those given in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and in the absence of any submissions by the Russian Government as to any remedies available to the applicants, the Court concludes that there has been a violation by the Russian Federation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Mozer, § 218, and Mangîr and Others, § 72, both cited above).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

65.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.    Damage

66.  The applicants claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) each in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be paid by Russia. They indicated that that was the amount awarded by the Court in the case of Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , which was similar to their case. They did not claim any compensation from the Republic of Moldova.

67.  The Russian Government contended that the case was inadmissible and asked the Court to dismiss the claims for non-pecuniary damage.

68.  Having regard to its finding of a violation of the applicants’ rights by the Russian Federation, the Court considers that an award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage is justified in this case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 1,500 to each applicant.

B.     Costs and expenses

69.  The applicants also claimed EUR 4,000 jointly for costs and expenses, to be paid by the Russian Government. They did not claim any compensation from the Republic of Moldova.

70.  The Russian Government considered that claim excessive and unsubstantiated and asked the Court to dismiss it.

71.  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Mozer, cited above, § 240). Having regard to all the relevant factors and to Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court awards the amount claimed in full.

C.    Default interest

72.  The Court 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 strike out the part of the application concerning the applicants listed in Appendix 2;

2.      Declares the application in respect of the applicants listed in Appendix 3 admissible;

3.      Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Russian Federation;

5.      Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;

6.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Russian Federation;

7.      Holds

(a)   that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants listed in Appendix 3, within three months, the following amounts:

(i)         EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant;

(ii)       EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 February 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

   Hasan Bakırcı                                                                         Ivana Jelić
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

APPENDIX I - List of all the applicants									Successor, if applicable
No	Last Name	First Name	Sex	Date of Birth	State of Birth	Nat.	Address	Demise	Last Name	First Name
1	Agatieva	Ana	F	22/11/1950	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ana Agatieva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
2	Alexandrova	Elizaveta	F	24/05/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Elizaveta Alexandrova sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
3	Alexeev	Alexei	M	23/04/1968	MDA	MDA	Dlui Alexei Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
4	Alexeev	Victor	M	23/06/1964	MDA	MDA	Dlui Victor Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
5	Alexeev	Victoria	F	29/12/1979	MDA	MDA	Dnei Victoria Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
6	Alexeeva	Maria	F	14/08/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
7	Alexeeva	Tamara	F	08/05/1961	MDA	MDA	Dnei Tamara Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
8	Alexeeva	Parascovia	F	05/04/1935	MDA	MDA	Dnei Parascovia Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
9	Andreev	Iurie	M	24/04/1964	MDA	MDA	Dlui Iurie Andreev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
10	Barabaș	Mariana	F	31/07/1990	MDA	MDA	Dnei Mariana BARABAŞ sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
11	Beșleaga	Liuba	F	07/03/1929	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liuba Beșleaga sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
12	Bușnița	Ana	F	05/03/1954	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ana Bușnița sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
13	Carpov	Ala	F	23/09/1967	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ala Carpov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
14	Carpov	Raisa	F	16/11/1964	MDA	MDA	Dnei Raisa Carpov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
15	Cebotari	Anna	F	07/11/1934	MDA	MDA	Dnei Anna Cebotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
16	Cebotari	Vladimir	M	07/04/1965	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vladimir Cebotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
17	Celonenco	Andrei	M	10/12/1959	MDA	MDA	Dlui Andrei Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
18	Celonenco	Mihail	M	10/10/1927	MDA	MDA	Dlui Mihail Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
19	Celonenco	Olga	F	18/11/1939	MDA	MDA	Dnei Olga Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
20	Celonenco	Iulia	F	30/08/1944	MDA	MDA	Dnei Iulia Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
21	Cibotari	Liuba	F	10/04/1951	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liuba Cibotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
22	Cobzari	Simion	M	12/09/1951	MDA	MDA	Dlui Simion COBZARI sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
23	Cobzari	Profira	F	05/06/1954	MDA	MDA	Dnei Profira Cobzari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
24	Condrova	Liubovi	F	01/01/1929	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Condrova sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
25	Cuciuc	Vasile	M	20/03/1966	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vasile Cuciuc sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
26	Cuciuc	Lidia	F	07/06/1951	MDA	MDA	Dnei Lidia Cuciuc sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
27	Driga	Ştefan	M	15/08/1958	MDA	MDA	Dlui Stepan Driga sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
28	Florea	Valentin	M	06/06/1952	MDA	MDA	Dlui Valentin Florea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
29	Florea	Parascovia	F	02/10/1935	MDA	MDA	Dnei Parascovia Florea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
30	Gațcan	Vasile	M	26/05/1949	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vasile Gațcan sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
31	Gațcan	Elizaveta	F	01/07/1947	MDA	MDA	Dnei Elizaveta Gațcan sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
32	Gavrilaș	Anatalia	F	16/08/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Anatalia Gavrilaș sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
33	Gavrilița	Maia	F	09/05/1964	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maia Gavrilița sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
34	Gazea	Maria	F	13/01/1936	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
35	Gazea	Dumitru	M	13/03/1966	MDA	MDA	Dlui Dumitru Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised	Gazea	Liudmila
36	Gazea	Maria	F	10/10/1939	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
37	Gazea	Anatolie	M	05/11/1960	MDA	MDA	Dlui Anatoli Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
38	Gazea	Alexandra	F	10/08/1933	MDA	MDA	Dnei Alexandra Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
39	Isacov	Victor	M	18/05/1939	MDA	MDA	Dlui Victor Isacov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
40	Jitari	Eudochia	F	23/04/1972	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eudochia Jitari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
41	Mardari	Tatiana	F	29/03/1962	MDA	MDA	Dnei Tatiana Mardari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
42	Nedostup	Boris	M	08/07/1970	MDA	MDA	Dlui Boris Nedostup sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
43	Nedostup	Oleg	M	18/04/1974	MDA	MDA	Dlui Oleg Nedostup sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised	Nedostup	Boris
44	Oprea	Petru	M	26/02/1949	MDA	MDA	Dlui Petru OPREA sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
45	Oprea	Valentina	F	29/07/1966	MDA	MDA	Dnei Valentina Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
46	Oprea	Eudochia	F	04/06/1973	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eudochia Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
47	Oprea	Nicolae	M	03/03/1953	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
48	Reul	Eugenia	F	01/05/1938	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eugenia Reul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
49	Reul	Veronica	F	05/02/1949	MDA	MDA	Dnei Veronica Reul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
50	Roșca	Vladimir	M	28/11/1953	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vladimir ROŞCA sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
51	Smochina	Nicolae	M	15/09/1976	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Smochina sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
52	Tihnean	Liubovi	F	05/12/1950	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Tihnean sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
53	Timuş	Valentin	M	23/06/1972	MDA	MDA	Dlui Valentin Timuş sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
54	Timuș	Dumitru	M	27/08/1956	MDA	MDA	Dlui Dumitru Timuș sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
55	Ursul	Liuba	F	29/10/1963	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Ursul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
56	Voinschi	Nicolae	M	20/02/1959	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Voinschi sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
57	Voinschi	Nadejda	F	27/02/1963	MDA	MDA	Dnei Nadejda Voinschii sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova

APPENDIX II - List of the applicants in respect of whom the application is to be struck out
No	Last Name	First Name	Sex	Date of Birth	State of Birth	Nat.	Address	Demise
1	Alexandrova	Elizaveta	F	24/05/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Elizaveta Alexandrova sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
2	Celonenco	Mihail	M	10/10/1927	MDA	MDA	Dlui Mihail Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
3	Celonenco	Iulia	F	30/08/1944	MDA	MDA	Dnei Iulia Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
4	Cobzari	Simion	M	12/09/1951	MDA	MDA	Dlui Simion COBZARI sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
5	Cobzari	Profira	F	05/06/1954	MDA	MDA	Dnei Profira Cobzari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
6	Condrova	Liubovi	F	01/01/1929	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Condrova sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
7	Florea	Parascovia	F	02/10/1935	MDA	MDA	Dnei Parascovia Florea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
8	Gațcan	Vasile	M	26/05/1949	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vasile Gațcan sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
9	Gavrilaș	Anatalia	F	16/08/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Anatalia Gavrilaș sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
10	Isacov	Victor	M	18/05/1939	MDA	MDA	Dlui Victor Isacov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
11	Reul	Eugenia	F	01/05/1938	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eugenia Reul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
12	Reul	Veronica	F	05/02/1949	MDA	MDA	Dnei Veronica Reul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
13	Roșca	Vladimir	M	28/11/1953	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vladimir ROŞCA sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
14	Tihnean	Liubovi	F	05/12/1950	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Tihnean sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised
15	Timuș	Dumitru	M	27/08/1956	MDA	MDA	Dlui Dumitru Timuș sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Demised

APPENDIX III - list of applicants in respect of whom the application is admissible										Successor, if applicable
No		Last Name	First Name	Sex		Date of Birth	State of Birth	Nat.	Address	Last Name	First Name
1	Agatieva		Ana		F	22/11/1950	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ana Agatieva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
2	Alexeev		Alexei		M	23/04/1968	MDA	MDA	Dlui Alexei Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
3	Alexeev		Victor		M	23/06/1964	MDA	MDA	Dlui Victor Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
4	Alexeev		Victoria		F	29/12/1979	MDA	MDA	Dnei Victoria Alexeev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
5	Alexeeva		Maria		F	14/08/1930	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
6	Alexeeva		Tamara		F	08/05/1961	MDA	MDA	Dnei Tamara Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
7	Alexeeva		Parascovia		F	05/04/1935	MDA	MDA	Dnei Parascovia Alexeeva sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
8	Andreev		Iurie		M	24/04/1964	MDA	MDA	Dlui Iurie Andreev sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
9	Barabaș		Mariana		F	31/07/1990	MDA	MDA	Dnei Mariana BARABAŞ sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
10	Beșleaga		Liuba		F	07/03/1929	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liuba Beșleaga sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
11	Bușnița		Ana		F	05/03/1954	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ana Bușnița sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
12	Carpov		Ala		F	23/09/1967	MDA	MDA	Dnei Ala Carpov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
13	Carpov		Raisa		F	16/11/1964	MDA	MDA	Dnei Raisa Carpov sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
14	Cebotari		Anna		F	07/11/1934	MDA	MDA	Dnei Anna Cebotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
15	Cebotari		Vladimir		M	07/04/1965	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vladimir Cebotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
16	Celonenco		Andrei		M	10/12/1959	MDA	MDA	Dlui Andrei Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
17	Celonenco		Olga		F	18/11/1939	MDA	MDA	Dnei Olga Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
18	Celonenco		Iulia		F	01/01/1939	MDA	MDA	Dnei Iulia Celonenco sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
19	Cibotari		Liuba		F	10/04/1951	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liuba Cibotari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
20	Cuciuc		Vasile		M	20/03/1966	MDA	MDA	Dlui Vasile Cuciuc sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
21	Cuciuc		Lidia		F	07/06/1951	MDA	MDA	Dnei Lidia Cuciuc sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
22	Driga		Stepan		M	15/08/1958	MDA	MDA	Dlui Stepan Driga sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
23	Florea		Valentin		M	06/06/1952	MDA	MDA	Dlui Valentin Florea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
24	Gațcan		Elizaveta		F	01/07/1947	MDA	MDA	Dnei Elizaveta Gațcan sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
25	Gavrilița		Maia		F	09/05/1964	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maia Gavrilița sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
26	Gazea		Maria		F	13/01/1936	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
27	Gazea		Dumitru		M	13/03/1966	MDA	MDA	Dlui Dumitru Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Gazea	Liudmila
28	Gazea		Maria		F	10/10/1939	MDA	MDA	Dnei Maria Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
29	Gazea		Anatoli		M	05/11/1960	MDA	MDA	Dlui Anatoli Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
30	Gazea		Alexandra		F	10/08/1933	MDA	MDA	Dnei Alexandra Gazea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
31	Jitari		Eudochia		F	23/04/1972	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eudochia Jitari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
32	Mardari		Tatiana		F	29/03/1962	MDA	MDA	Dnei Tatiana Mardari sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
33	Nedostup		Boris		M	08/07/1970	MDA	MDA	Dlui Boris Nedostup sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
34	Nedostup		Oleg		M	18/04/1974	MDA	MDA	Dlui Oleg Nedostup sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova	Nedostup	Boris
35	Oprea		Petru		M	26/02/1949	MDA	MDA	Dlui Petru OPREA sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
36	Oprea		Valentina		F	29/07/1966	MDA	MDA	Dnei Valentina Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
37	Oprea		Eudochia		F	04/06/1973	MDA	MDA	Dnei Eudochia Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
38	Oprea		Nicolae		M	03/03/1953	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Oprea sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
39	Smochina		Nicolae		M	15/09/1976	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Smochina sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
40	Ursul		Liubovi		F	29/10/1963	MDA	MDA	Dnei Liubovi Ursul sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
41	Voinschi		Nicolae		M	20/02/1959	MDA	MDA	Dlui Nicolae Voinschi sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova
42	Voinschii		Nadejda		F	27/02/1963	MDA	MDA	Dnei Nadejda Voinschii sat Molovata Nouă r-n Dubăsari Rep. Moldova