SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ȘCERBININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Application no. 76892/14)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
29 June 2021
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Șcerbinina v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 76892/14) 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, Ms Irina Șcerbinina (“the applicant”), on 4 December 2014;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan and the Russian Governments (“the Governments”);
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 8 June 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case is about alleged denial of fair trial to the applicant as a result of civil proceedings before the courts of the “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”) which could not qualify as “independent tribunals established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Tiraspol. The applicant was represented by Ms N. Hriplivîi, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. 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. In 2013 the applicant was dismissed from employment. She initiated reinstatement proceedings against her employer before the courts of the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (“MRT”). 7. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the “MRT” on 5 June 2014 by which the applicant’s action was dismissed. 8. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the authorities of Moldova and a criminal investigation was initiated by the Bender District Prosecutor’s Office into that applicant’s complaints. Later the proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the facts complained about by the applicant did not disclose the elements of a criminal offence. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORk
9. 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
10. The Court must first determine whether the applicant falls 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
11. The applicant submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction. 12. The Moldovan Government submitted that they had positive obligations to secure the applicants’ rights. 13. For their part, the Russian Government argued that the applicant 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 6
Outcome: no_violation