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).

Outcome for Article 11: violation