FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF URUSBIEV AND OTHERS
v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 33519/15 and 4 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
23 October 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Urusbiev 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 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 applications nos. 558/16 and 862/16 and of the complaints in the appended table in the rest of the applications, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicants’ deprivation of liberty and detention in inadequate material conditions in the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (the “MRT” – for more details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004‑VII). 2. The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention of unlawful deprivation of liberty, inadequate conditions of detention and a lack of medical assistance. Certain applicants also complained of a violation of their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention of their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, and of their right to freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. The applicants also relied on Articles 6, 13 and 14 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 10: violation