TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT
45
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL
No. 1
A. The Chamber’s conclusions
181. The Chamber considered that the matters raised under Article 14
related to the same matters as those examined in the context of the
complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, it concluded that
there was no need to examine the Article 14 complaint separately.
B. The parties’ submissions
1. The Moldovan Government
182. The Government argued that section 21(3) of Law no. 273 (see
paragraph 80 above) did not exclude Transdniestrian residents from the
prohibition on MPs holding multiple nationalities but excluded
Transdniestrian institutions from the scope of the law. The Government
agreed with the Chamber’s finding that no further issues arose under this
head.
2. The applicant
183. The applicant refuted the Government’s explanation of the meaning
of section 21(3), arguing that the text of the Law was self-explanatory and
applied to those living in Transdniestria, and not to elections to
Transdniestrian institutions, which were in any event not recognised by the
Moldovan Government. He maintained that in his view, a separate issue
arose under Article 14 because Law no. 273 expressly excluded its
application to Moldovan nationals living in Transdniestria, although a
number of them also held Russian nationality. There was no justification for
this difference in treatment.
184. The applicant requested the Court to find a separate violation of
Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
3. The Romanian Government
185. The Romanian Government also disagreed with the more limited
interpretation which the respondent Government sought to give to
section 21(3) of Law no. 273 on the exception for Transdniestria, which
they argued was contrary to general principles of interpretation. Given that
the respondent Government did not recognise the institutions and authorities
established in Transdniestria, they could not claim that the Law passed in