63750/17

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA (Application no. 63750/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 21 May 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of V.I. 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 application (no. 63750/17) 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”) on 16 August 2017 by a Moldovan and Ukrainian national, V.I. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1985, lives in Camenca and was represented by Mr A. Postică and Ms N. Hriplivîi, lawyers practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan and the Russian Governments, represented by their Agents at the time, Mr O. Rotari in respect of the Moldovan Government and Mr M. Galperin in respect of the Russian Government; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Governments and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 30 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The case concerns the disclosure by the “authorities” of 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) of confidential medical information about the applicant in his military service record book and the refusal of “MRT courts” to order the removal of the information from that document. The applicant relied on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.         Background and events in the “MRT” 2.  In 2004 the applicant was exempted from conscription in the “MRT army” on the ground that he was unfit for military service owing to mental illness. Information relating to the specific mental illness was included in his military service record book. 3.  In the “MRT”, military record books were to be presented to third parties for identification purposes. After several unsuccessful attempts to find employment as a result of the information relating to the diagnosis in his record book, on 10 August 2012 the applicant brought a civil action before the “MRT courts” and sought its removal from the document. The applicant requested that the “MRT court” order a psychiatric examination. 4.  By a final judgment of 16 February 2017, the “MRT Supreme Court” dismissed the applicant’s action. No psychiatric examination was conducted. 5.  After the respondent Governments were given notice of the case, on 23 October 2018 the applicant was issued with a new military service record book, in which the reference to his having a mental illness was removed. On 26 August 2019 the applicant was hired as a “public servant” in a “ministry in the MRT”.       Complaints to THE Moldovan and Russian authorities 6.  On 8 July 2014 the applicant made several complaints to the Moldovan authorities concerning an alleged violation of the right to respect for his private life and requested that a psychiatric examination be conducted. On 10 July 2014 the Moldovan Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that his request had been forwarded to the Moldovan Ministry of Health. On an unspecified date he was informed that no criminal proceedings had been initiated. 7.  In July 2014 the applicant initiated court proceedings in the Moldovan courts, seeking an acknowledgment that the information concerning mental illness in the “MRT” document was incorrect. On 12 June 2017 the Anenii Noi District Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action, holding that the document was a priori unlawful on the grounds that it had been issued by unconstitutional “authorities” of the “MRT”. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment with final effect on 25 September 2019, noting also that the applicant had failed to cooperate with the courts to disprove the diagnosis. 8.  On 4 August 2017 the applicant complained to the Russian embassy in Moldova and to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office. RELEVANT MATERIAL 9.  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). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT         PRELIMINARY ISSUES 10.  The facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present case (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, § 73, 17 January 2023, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 68). 11.  The Court observes that the applicant complained only in respect of facts and proceedings that had occurred in the “MRT” and did not raise any complaint in respect of the proceedings before the Moldovan courts. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to examine only the complaints concerning the proceedings that took place in the “MRT”. 12.  Furthermore, the Court notes that after notice of the case had been given, the applicant obtained the removal of confidential medical information from his military service record book (see paragraph 5 above). However, he did not obtain any acknowledgement of a violation of his rights from 2004 to 2018 or any compensation. For that reason, the applicant did not lose his victim status, and the Court will pursue the examination of the case.       PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 13.  The respondent Russian Government submitted that the complaint in its respect fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction because the acts had taken place within the “MRT”, which did not fall under the responsibility of the Russian Federation. 14.  The Ukrainian Government, acting as a third party, submitted that in establishing the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and Republic of Moldova, the Court should not distinguish the present case from Ilașcu and others (cited above); Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Mozer (cited above). They submitted that the Russian Federation had continued to exercise jurisdiction over “MRT” after 2010 and that the “MRT” was not within the effective control of the Moldovan Government. 15.  The Court notes that it has considered the Russian Government’s objections of inadmissibility ratione loci and ratione personae in previous cases and dismissed them (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 81-95, and, as a more recent example, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 74‑84). The facts of the present case concern the same period of time as the facts of Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 42224/11, §§ 11‑35, 9 May 2017), and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 86‑87). The Moldovan Government did not dispute its jurisdiction but noted its lack of de facto control over the “MRT”. In the absence of any information attesting to a change to the situation found in its previous judgments, the Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from those cited above. The Court therefore concludes that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction. 16.  The respondent Moldovan Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies before the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova, arguing, inter alia, that the applicant could have appealed against the prosecutor’s refusal to open a criminal case. The Court notes that a similar objection has been dismissed in the past (ibid., § 101) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 17.  The Court therefore dismisses the respondent Governments’ preliminary objections.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 18.  The applicant complained about the disclosure of confidential medical information in his military service record book and the refusal of the “MRT courts” to order the removal of that information. He relied on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. Given that these complaints overlap (see paragraph 27 below), the Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that they fall to be examined under Article 8 only. 19.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 20.  The applicant submitted that the military service record book had contained information about his health, which had allowed third parties – including potential employers – to establish that he had ostensibly been diagnosed with a specific mental illness. He complained of a lack of adequate procedural safeguards before the “MRT” courts which could have remedied the interference with his private life. In respect of the Republic of Moldova, the applicant noted the efforts made by the Moldovan authorities to assist certain victims of abuse in the “MRT”. However, he argued that actions taken by the Moldovan President, Igor Dodon, throughout his term of office from 2016 to 2019 had reduced the effectiveness of the Moldovan government’s efforts to restore its control over the Transnistrian region; accordingly, Moldova had failed to secure his rights under the Convention. 21.  The Moldovan Government argued that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention on their part because they had fulfilled their positive obligation to take appropriate measures to secure the applicant’s rights. They also submitted that they had lacked effective control over the “MRT”. 22.  The Russian Government did not make any specific comment about the merits of this complaint. They submitted general information about the legal framework and judicial organisation of the “MRT”. 23.  The general principles concerning protection from disclosure of personal data have recently been summarised in P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 1122/12, §§ 27-28, 26 May 2020). 24.  The Court notes that in the present case, the applicant’s medical information was included in a public document that he had to present for various purposes, thereby allowing third parties to find out about the illness which served as the basis for exempting him from military service. The inclusion of medical data in a certificate which was to be presented to third parties constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention (see Surikov v. Ukraine, no. 42788/06, § 75, 26 January 2017, and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, cited above, § 28). 25.  It remains to be ascertained whether the interference was in accordance with the law, pursued one of the legitimate aims of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention and was “necessary in a democratic society”. 26.  In the present case, the Court notes that the interference with the applicant’s right to private life was not carried out in accordance with Moldovan law but under “MRT law”. The Court has already found in the past that “MRT law” cannot constitute a legal basis for interferences with rights and freedoms under the Convention (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, §§ 38 and 55‑56, 30 May 2017, in respect of the complaint raised under Article 8, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 128-29, in respect of the complaints raised under Articles 5 and 6). There is nothing in the present case to lead the Court to reach a different conclusion in respect of “MRT law”. It follows that the interference complained of was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. 27.  In addition, the Court notes its findings from previous cases that remedies before de facto “MRT courts” were ineffective owing to the absence of any indication that those courts were “part of a judicial system operating on a constitutional and legal basis reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention” (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 148, 150 and 211, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 99 and 128). Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant has not had any possibility of having the lawfulness and the proportionality of the interference determined by a tribunal established by law, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, §§ 53‑55, ECHR 2008). 28.  In determining whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to secure the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court notes that the events in question took place between 2011 and 2017 – that is, during the same time period as the events in Eriomenco (cited above, §§ 11‑35), and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco (cited above, §§ 12-46) – and that none of the parties submitted any evidence indicating that the Republic of Moldova had changed its position towards the “MRT”, including in respect of the activity of Moldovan senior officials. The Court therefore sees no reasons to distinguish the present case from those cited above and concludes that the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligations and that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova. 29.  Turning to Russian Federation’s responsibility under the Convention, the Court has already found that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the time of the events of the present case (see paragraph 15 above). In the light of that conclusion and the Court’s case-law, the Court sees no reasons to distinguish the present case from those cited above and concludes that Russia’s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. 30.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 31.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He submitted a contract signed with his representatives and a detailed breakdown of the legal services provided. The applicant requested that the incurred costs and expenses be paid directly to his representatives. 32.  The Moldovan Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive and unsubstantiated. The Russian Government invited the Court to make an award in accordance with its established case-law. 33.  The Court notes that it has not found any violation of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova in the present case. Accordingly, no award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage or costs and expenses is to be made as regards that respondent State. 34.  Having regard to the violation by the Russian Federation found above, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be paid by the Russian Government. 35.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 3,500 covering the costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be paid by the Russian Government. 36.  The amount awarded in respect of costs and expenses is to be paid directly to the applicant’s representatives. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Holds that the facts complained of by the applicant fall within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova; Holds that the facts complained of by the applicant fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in so far as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022, and dismisses the Russian Government’s objections of incompatibility ratione personae and ratione loci; Dismisses the Moldovan Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, and no violation by the Republic of Moldova; Holds  that the Russian Government is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:  EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;   EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s representatives;   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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Martina Keller Kateřina Šimáčková  Deputy Registrar President