SECOND SECTION
CASE OF RÎBAC AND RODINA-AGRO S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Application no. 28857/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
15 June 2021
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rîbac and Rodina-Agro S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Aleš Pejchal, President,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 28857/14) against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Pavel Rîbac and a company incorporated in Molodva, Rodina-Agro S.A. (“the applicants”), on 31 March 2014;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”);
the Russian Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee and to the Court’s decision to reject it;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 18 May 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a case concerning the alleged breach of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention, in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. THE FACTS
2. The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Erjovo. The second applicant is a company incorporated in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. The applicants were represented by Mr S.G. Popovschi, a lawyer practising in Tiraspol. 3. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and the Russian Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012). 6. On 6 November 2012 the former members of the kolkhoz Rodina from Erjovo and Sarateia villages created the second applicant with a view to defending their interests in respect of the plans by the Government of the “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (“MRT”) to transfer the land owned by the former kolkhoz to other persons. 7. On 21 September 2013 the first applicant organised a public meeting for the former members of the kolkhoz Rodina with a view to discussing the matter about the land. Sixty-five persons participated in the meeting. 8. On 23 September 2013 the Rîbniţa District Court imposed a fine of 145 MRT roubles on the first applicant for the breach of the rules of conducting public manifestations. It found that the first applicant had not obtained a prior authorisation for holding the manifestation. The first applicant challenged this decision before the MRT Supreme Court. 9. On 31 October 2013 the MRT Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Rîbniţa District Court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
10. 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
JURISDICTION
11. The Court must first determine whether the applicants fell within the jurisdiction of the respondent States for the purposes of the matters complained of, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. The parties’ submissions
12. The applicants submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction. 13. The Moldovan Government submitted that they had positive obligations to secure the applicants’ rights. 14. For their part, the Russian Government argued that the applicants did not fall within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the application should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 11
Outcome: no_violation