The complaint successfully examined the applicant's detention and subsequent conviction, which, in the applicant's opinion, are unlawful. The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2005, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who was a citizen of Ukraine, complained that his detention and subsequent conviction by the court in the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika in 2002 were unlawful. After the applicant's death in 2006, his mother supported the complaint.
On 30 May 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court noted that the applicant's complaints did not fall within the jurisdiction of Ukraine and therefore declared the complaint inadmissible for examination on the merits. The European Court held by six votes in favor, one against, that in the present case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, and the authorities of the Russian Federation violated the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), and obliged the Government of the Russian Federation to pay the applicant EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.
The ECHR judgment of 30 May 2017 in the case of Soyma v. The Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine (аpplication No. 1203/05).