CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s58077338 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#262626 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sFD0CA97F { width:178.26pt; display:inline-block } .sAFA34012 { width:196.47pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s927039E3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       FORMER THIRD SECTION               CASE OF ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 12200/08 and 2 others – see appended list)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   16 July 2019     FINAL   16/10/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Former Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications (nos.   12200/08, 35949/11 and 58282/12) against 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 four Russian nationals and three Russian non-profit organisations whose names are listed in the Appendix (“the applicants”), on 3 March 2008, 20 May 2011 and 20 August 2012 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers whose names are listed in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that the refusal to register associations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Russia had violated their right to freedom of association and had amounted to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The applicants in application no. 58282/12 also alleged a violation of their right of access to a court. 4.     On 11 March 2011 and 22 March 2016 the Government were given notice of the above complaints. 5.     In addition to written observations by the Government and the applicants, third-party comments were received from the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University and jointly from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), which the President had authorised to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Application no. 12200/08 ( Zhdanov and Rainbow House v.   Russia ) 6.     The first applicant is the president of the second applicant, a regional public association for the protection of citizens’ sexual rights. 1.     Background information 7.     In April 2005 the first applicant opened a gay nightclub which started to organise weekly gay parties. 8.     On an unspecified day the police, masked and armed, stormed into the club, ordered that everyone should lie down on the floor and dragged the club visitors into a police bus. Several days later the lease for the premises of the nightclub was suddenly terminated without any explanation. 9.     In August 2005 a group of gay activists notified the Tyumen Administration of their intention to hold a gay march on 5 September 2005. At the press conference of 17 August 2005 the head of the Interior Department of the Tyumen Region said that he had been extremely astonished when he had learnt that a gay march was being planned in Tyumen. He continued: “In my personal opinion, Tyumen is neither the Netherlands, nor Amsterdam. One cannot hold a gay march in our town.” Representatives of the Orthodox Church also spoke publicly against the march. The Tyumen Administration refused permission to hold a gay march. 10.     On 20 August 2005 it was publicly announced that a regional public association named “Rainbow House” (the second applicant) had been created with the aim of defending the rights of LGBT people. 2.     The first refusal of registration 11.     In June 2006 the first applicant submitted an application for registration of the second applicant with the local department of the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereafter “the Tyumen registration authority”). 12.     The Tyumen registration authority commissioned an expert opinion from the Tyumen Institute of Legal Studies of the Interior Ministry of Russia. The Institute studied the second applicant’s articles of association and on 31   July 2006 prepared an expert opinion, which read as follows: “The rights and legitimate interests of citizens of traditional sexual orientation, of society [as a whole] and of the State may be breached by activities related to the following stated aims of [the second applicant]: Publication and distribution of mass media, print, film and video products and communication via the Internet of information about [the second applicant]; Participation in the drafting of laws aimed at improving protection of persons of non-traditional sexual orientation. The above finding is based on the following consideration: realisation of these aims involves propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation. ... [The second applicant’s] activities relating to propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation may endanger the security of Russian society and the State for the following reasons: –     It will destroy the moral values of society; –     It will undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation by decreasing its population. It follows from the above that propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation by [the second applicant] may be classified as extremist activities because the pursuit of the aims mentioned above involves not only the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of non-traditional sexual orientation, but also attempts to increase the number of such citizens by converting those who, without such propaganda, would have retained a traditional sexual orientation. However, to confirm the above finding, it is necessary to perform a sociological study   ...” 13.     The first applicant received a copy of that expert opinion in October 2007. 14.     On 29 December 2006 the Tyumen registration authority refused registration of the second applicant, finding that it represented a danger to Russia’s national security. In particular, it considered that propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation was capable of “destroying the moral values of society and undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation by decreasing its population”. It further considered that the second applicant’s activities might infringe the rights and freedoms of others, jeopardise the constitutionally protected institutions of family and marriage and encourage social and religious hatred and enmity. It concluded that the second applicant was an extremist organisation. The Tyumen registration authority also noted irregularities in the document confirming the lease for the second applicant’s office and reproached the first applicant for paying the registration fee several days before the second applicant had been founded. 15.     The first applicant commissioned an expert opinion from a public association, the Independent Legal Expert Council. The expert opinion, dated 7 February 2007, indicates that the second applicant was not an extremist organisation. Its articles of association did not contain any indication that it would resort to propaganda of homosexuality, would encourage social or religious hatred or enmity or would endanger national security. 16.     On 10 March 2007 the first applicant challenged the decision of 29   December 2006 before the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereafter “the federal registration authority”). He submitted, in particular, that under Russian law, an association could be declared extremist by a judicial decision only. He further disputed the findings of the Tyumen registration authority, affirming that the second applicant had no intention to promote homosexuality or gay marriage. Its aims were to defend the rights of homosexuals and to promote tolerance of diversity among the population. Lastly, he complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation. 17.     On 18 April 2007 the federal registration service found that the decision of 29   December 2006 had been lawful. 18.     On 15 August 2007 the first applicant appealed against the refusal of registration to the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. He repeated the arguments set out in his complaint of 10 March 2007 and asked that the refusal to register the second applicant be declared unlawful and unfounded and that the Tyumen registration authority be required to remedy the breach of rights. 19.     On 26 October 2007 the Taganskiy District Court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint. It referred to the expert opinion of 31   July 2006, repeated verbatim the Tyumen registration authority’s decision of 29   December 2006 and found that it was lawful, well reasoned and justified. It rejected the applicant’s argument that an association could be declared extremist by a judicial decision only, finding that that rule applied only to registered associations, whereas the second applicant had never been registered. The court refused to take into account the expert opinion of 7   February 2007 because it had not been submitted to the Tyumen registration authority together with the application for registration. 20.     On 11 December 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 26 October 2007 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. 3.     The second refusal of registration 21.     On 2 May 2007 the first applicant resubmitted an application for registration of the second applicant with the Tyumen registration authority. 22.     On 1 June 2007 the Tyumen registration authority for a second time refused registration, repeating verbatim its previous reasoning of 29   December 2006 relating to the extremist nature of the second applicant’s activities. It also noted minor irregularities in the application for registration and accompanying documents, such as the failure to staple the application form or a typing error in the name of the department that had issued the first applicant’s passport. It also refused to accept the lease agreement for the second applicant’s office, finding that it had been drawn up incorrectly. Finally, the Tyumen registration authority held that the second applicant’s articles of association unlawfully vested the right to dispose of its property in the president, and that the competence and the procedure for appointment of one of the governing bodies were not clearly defined. 23 .     On 25 August 2007 the first applicant challenged the refusal before the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen, asking that it be declared unlawful and that the Tyumen registration authority be required to remedy the breach of law by registering the second applicant. He repeated the arguments set out in his complaint of 10 March 2007. He also submitted that the second applicant was an existing public association functioning without State registration as permitted under Russian law. Such existing associations could only be declared extremist by a judicial decision following a prosecutor’s warning. No such warnings had been issued in respect of the second applicant and its activities had never been classified as extremist by the competent authorities. Lastly, the first applicant submitted that the minor irregularities in the registration documents, such as a typing error in the name of the department that had issued the first applicant’s passport, could be easily corrected through a special procedure provided for by law. 24.     On an unspecified date the Tyumen registration authority commissioned expert opinions from the Tyumen Institute of Legal Studies of the Interior Ministry of Russia and from the Institute of Governmental and Legal Studies of the Tyumen State University. 25.     On 17 October 2007 the Tyumen Institute of Legal Studies of the Interior Ministry of Russia found that the second applicant’s activities might be extremist. The rights and legitimate interests of heterosexual citizens, of society as a whole and of the State might be breached if the second applicant created an information centre, issued and distributed printed, video and other material, or organised exhibitions, conferences, meetings, assemblies, marches or pickets. All those activities might involve propaganda of homosexuality and therefore might promote social discord. They might also destroy the moral values of society and undermine the national security and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation by decreasing its population. The second applicant’s activities might be aimed not only at protecting the rights and legitimate interests of homosexual citizens, but also at increasing the number of such citizens by converting those who, without the second applicant’s propaganda, would have retained a “traditional sexual orientation”. 26.     On the same day the Institute of Governmental and Legal Studies of the Tyumen State University also found that the second applicant was an extremist organisation. Firstly, the expression “the protection of citizens’ sexual rights” in the second applicant’s name was insulting to the moral, national and religious feelings of citizens. The Constitution guaranteed the right to respect for private life, which covered sexual relations. Any interference in the sphere of private life, including for its protection, was contrary to the Constitution and breached citizens’ rights. It followed that the sole purpose of the founders of the second applicant was to insult the morality and the religious feelings of others. Secondly, the distribution of printed, video and other material by the second applicant might incite religious discord because a majority of the traditional confessions in Russia viewed homosexuality negatively. Open propaganda of homosexuality would cause social tension and might provoke a violent response. Thirdly, “non-traditional sexual orientation” was a broad term that could include paedophilia, which was a criminal offence in Russia. Therefore, the second applicant’s activities might threaten public order. Finally, the support of persons suffering from HIV/AIDS, proclaimed as one of the aims of the second applicant, might violate the rights of those persons to confidentiality and respect for private life. It was impossible for a public association intending to advertise its activities to ensure the confidentiality and inviolability of private life. 27.     On 7 November 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen found that the decision of 1 June 2007 to refuse registration had been lawful and justified. It held that the refusal of registration did not breach the applicants’ right of association because the second applicant could continue to function without State registration. The decision of 1   June 2007 had not declared the second applicant an extremist organisation. It had instead found that there were indications of extremism in its articles of association and that it did not therefore comply with the requirements of domestic law. 28.     The first applicant appealed. 29.     On 17 December 2007 the Tyumen Regional Court upheld the judgment of 7 November 2007 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. It held: “The first-instance court correctly rejected the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that [the Tyumen registration authority’s] decision to refuse legal-entity status to [Rainbow House] had been lawful and had not breached the plaintiff’s rights and legitimate interests. A legal analysis of that public association’s articles of association submitted for registration by the plaintiff revealed that its stated aims and objectives were contrary to the applicable laws, and in particular to the Russian Constitution. This finding of the court is correct as it is based on the circumstances of the case as correctly established on the basis of the evidence in the case file, and on the applicable legal provisions. In particular, the first-instance court correctly noted in its judgment that the registration authority had not declared [Rainbow House] an extremist organisation. It only found that some provisions of its articles of association contained indications of extremism. That finding served as a lawful basis for the refusal of legal-entity status in accordance with section 23(1)(1) and (2) of the Public Associations Act. The judgment lists these indications of extremism: propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation which might [undermine] the security of the State and of society, create conditions for inciting social or religious hatred or enmity, or undermine the foundations of the family and marriage, contrary to Articles 29 and 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 1 and 12 of the Family Code and section 16 of the Public Associations Act. The arguments in the appeal submissions are based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable legal provisions and an incorrect assessment of the relevant circumstances. They cannot therefore be taken into account. The plaintiff’s argument that [the registration authority’s] decision had breached his rights as a member of a public association is unfounded. After correcting the above ‑ mentioned defects in the articles of association, he may reapply for registration of legal-entity status.” 30 .     Further applications for registration were refused in May and November 2010 for the same reasons as before. B.     Application no. 35949/11 ( Alekseyev and Movement for Marriage Equality v. Russia ) 31.     The first applicant is the founder and the executive director of the second applicant, an autonomous non-profit organisation. 32.     In November 2009 the first applicant decided to create an autonomous non-profit organisation called Movement for Marriage Equality with the aims of defending human rights in the sphere of marriage relations, combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and promoting equality for LGBT people, in particular through the legalisation of same-sex marriage. 33.     On 14 December 2009 the first applicant submitted an application to register the second applicant with the Moscow department of the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereafter “the Moscow registration authority”). 34.     On 12 January 2010 the Moscow registration authority refused to register the second applicant, finding that its articles of association were incompatible with Russian law. In particular, the second applicant’s aims as described in paragraph 3.1 of the articles of association were incompatible with section 2(2) of the Non-profit Organisations Act and Article 12 of the Family Code (see paragraphs 56 and 69 below). Moreover, the second applicant’s rights as set out in paragraph 5.1 of its articles of association were those belonging to public associations. Paragraph 11.1, stating that the organisation could cease its activities in the event that it was to be reorganised, was incompatible with the Civil Code, which provided that a reorganisation did not always result in cessation of activities. Paragraphs   12.1 to 12.3 provided that changes could be made to the second applicant’s articles of association instead of to its constitutional documents. Some clauses contained in paragraph 7.1 describing the second applicant’s sources of income were also incompatible with the law. The application for registration mentioned only one founder of the second applicant, while its articles of association mentioned that it had been founded by citizens. There was also a mistake in the address indicated in the application for registration. 35.     On 5 April 2010 the first applicant challenged the refusal before the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. He submitted, in particular, that the refusal to register the second applicant violated his freedom of association as guaranteed by Article 30 of the Russian Constitution and Article   11 of the Convention. He argued that the second applicant’s aims were compatible with section 2(2) of the Non-profit Organisations Act. It pursued the social aim of promoting equality and combating discrimination, and the aim of defending human rights, specifically the right to marry for LGBT people. As regards the alleged incompatibility with Article 12 of the Family Code, the fact that the second applicant intended to promote an amendment to that Article to legalise same-sex marriage could not serve as grounds for refusing its registration. The first applicant also argued that the remaining grounds for the refusal of registration had not had any basis in law. Paragraph 5.1 of the articles of association did not mention any activities that were prohibited by law for non-profit organisations. Paragraph   11.1 only mentioned the possibility of ceasing activities in the event of a reorganisation in accordance with Russian law; it did not provide for the automatic cessation of activities. Paragraphs 12.1 to 12.3 provided that changes could be made to the second applicant’s articles of association, which was its only constitutional document. Paragraph 7.1 did not mention any sources of income prohibited by law. Furthermore, although the first applicant admitted that there had indeed been a discrepancy between the application for registration, which mentioned one founder, and the articles of association, mentioned “founders” in the plural, that had been a technical error that could be easily corrected through a special procedure provided for by law. Lastly, he argued that the address indicated in the application had been correct. 36.     On 20 July 2010 the Gagarinskiy District Court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint. It held that section 2(2) of the Non-profit Organisations Act, enumerating permissible aims for non-profit organisations, was open-ended. It followed that a non-profit organisation could pursue any aims except for making profit, provided they were compatible with public order and morality. The court further held as follows: “[The second applicant pursues aims] incompatible with basic morality as it aims to promote legalisation of same-sex marriage and to increase the number of citizens belonging to sexual minorities, thereby undermining the conceptions of good and evil, of sin and virtue established in society. If these aims are attained it may trigger a public reaction and result in a decrease in the birth rate.” The District Court further held that in accordance with national tradition, reflected in Article 12 of the Family Code, marriage was the union of a man and a woman with the aim of giving birth to and raising children. The second applicant’s aim of promoting legalisation of same-sex marriage was therefore incompatible with established morality, with the State policy of protecting the family, motherhood and childhood and with national law. The District Court noted that that finding did not breach Russia’s international obligations because, in particular, Article 12 of the Convention provided that the right to marry was to be exercised in accordance with national laws. The District Court also found that the other grounds for the refusal of registration advanced by the Moscow registration authority had been lawful and justified. 37.     On 20 December 2010, following an appeal by the applicants, the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment. C.     Application no. 58282/12 ( Alekseyev and Others v. Russia ) 38.     The first, second and third applicants are the founders of the fourth applicant, a public movement. The first applicant is the president of the board of directors of the fourth applicant. 39.     In October 2011 the first, second and third applicants decided to create Sochi Pride House with the aims of developing sports activities for LGBT people, combating homophobia in professional sport, creating positive attitudes towards LGBT sportspeople, and providing a forum for the latter during the Sochi Olympic Games. 40.     On 19 October 2011 they submitted an application for registration of the fourth applicant with the Krasnodar department of the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter “the Krasnodar registration authority”). 41.     On 16 November 2011 the Krasnodar registration authority refused to register the fourth applicant, finding that its articles of association were incompatible with Russian law. In particular, the name of the fourth applicant contained words that did not exist in the Russian language, in breach of section 1(6) of the State Language Act (see paragraph 70 below). The articles of association did not indicate which type of association the fourth applicant was. Paragraph 4.2 mentioned, in breach of the domestic law, that legally incapacitated persons could not be members. The application for registration also contained several mistakes. 42.     On 6 December 2011 the applicants challenged the refusal before the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar. They argued, firstly, that it was common practice to give public associations original names containing words in a foreign language. In particular, according to official data, there were eleven registered associations whose names contained the word “pride” and more than forty associations with the word “house” as part of their names. Moreover, the expression “pride house” did not have an adequate equivalent in Russian. Secondly, paragraph 1.1 of the articles of association indicated the fourth applicant’s organisational type: a public movement. The remaining mistakes were minor and should not serve as a ground for refusing registration. 43.     On 20 February 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It upheld the grounds for the refusal of registration cited by the Krasnodar registration authority, finding that they had been lawful and justified. The court also held as follows: “The aims of combating homophobia and creating positive attitudes towards LGBT sportspeople are incompatible with basic morality as they may lead to increasing the number of citizens belonging to sexual minorities, thereby undermining the conceptions of good and evil, of sin and virtue established in society ... The court does not see any reason to order that the respondent register [the fourth applicant] because its constitutional documents do not comply with the requirements of Russian law and its aims are incompatible with basic morality and the State policy of protecting the family, motherhood and childhood. Its activities amount to propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation, which may undermine national security, cause social and religious hatred and enmity and undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation by decreasing its population. They are therefore extremist in nature.” 44.     The applicants did not attend the pronouncement of the judgment. The minutes of 20 February 2012 mentioned that the judgment had been pronounced on that date, without specifying whether it was the entire judgment or the operative part only that had been pronounced. The written text of the judgment was sent to the applicants by post on 27   March 2012. It did not mention the date on which it had been delivered in finalised form or the date when the time-limit for appeal started to run or ended. 45.     On 5 March 2012 the case file was deposited with the District Court’s registry. 46.     On 19 March 2012 the applicants dispatched by post a short version of their appeal submissions against the judgment of 20 February 2012. The applicants submitted a postal receipt showing that they had sent a letter to the Pervomayskiy District Court on 19 March 2012. A short version of the appeal submissions was received by the District Court on 26 March 2012. 47.     On 25 March 2012 the applicants paid the appeal court fee. 48.     On 26 March 2012 they dispatched by post a complete version of their appeal submissions. It was received by the District Court on 3 April 2012. The applicants submitted, in particular, that the aim of Sochi Pride House was to combat discrimination against LGBT sportspeople. It did not intend to perform any unlawful or extremist activities. Nor could homosexuality be considered to be immoral. Russian law did not prohibit the creation of an association to defend LGBT rights. They also argued that sexual orientation was not a matter of choice and that its activities could not therefore increase the number of LGBT people. In any event, Sochi Pride House did not intend to resort to any propaganda of homosexuality. The refusal of registration had therefore amounted to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the District Court had relied on grounds that had not been cited by the Krasnodar registration authority in its refusal of registration of 16 November 2011. As those new grounds related to Sochi Pride House’s aims, it was clear that registration would be refused even if the applicants corrected the purely formal defects mentioned by the Krasnodar registration authority. The applicants then repeated the arguments they had advanced in their complaint of 6   December 2011. 49.     On 28 March 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court returned the short version of the appeal submissions to the applicants, finding that the appeal had been lodged on 26 March 2012, that is, to say outside the one ‑ month time-limit established by law. The applicants had not asked for an extension of the time-limit. Nor had they submitted the stamped envelope showing the date on which they had received the judgment of 20   February 2012. 50.     On 4 April 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court returned the complete version of the appeal submissions, finding that it had been received by the District Court on 3 April 2012, outside the time-limit established by law. The applicants had not asked for an extension of the time-limit. Nor had they submitted the stamped envelope showing the date on which they had received the judgment of 20 February 2012. 51 .     The applicants appealed against the decisions of 28 March and 4   April 2012. They submitted that under Article 321 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the one-month time-limit for lodging an appeal had started to run on the day when a written copy of the first-instance judgment had been made available to the parties (see paragraph 72 below). A written copy of the judgment of 20   February 2012 had been deposited with the court’s registry on 5 March 2012. Therefore, the time-limit for lodging an appeal had expired on 5 April 2012. In any event, even if the time-limit had started to run on the date the judgment had been pronounced, they had still complied with the time-limit as they had dispatched the appeal submissions by post on 19 March 2012, that is to say, less than a month after the pronouncement of the judgment of 20   February 2012. They submitted a copy of the postal receipt confirming the dispatch date; they also argued that the date of dispatch could be found on the stamp on the envelope. They also enclosed a copy of the stamped envelope confirming the date of receipt of the judgment of 20 February 2012. 52 .     On 24 July 2012 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the decision of 28   March 2012 on appeal, repeating the reasons set out in that decision and finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. It did not reply to the applicants’ argument that they had dispatched the appeal on 19   March 2012. 53.     It appears that the appeal against the decision of 4 April 2012 has never been examined. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Constitution of the Russian Federation 54.     Article 30 § 1 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association, including the right to establish trade unions to protect his or her interests. The free activity of public associations is guaranteed. 55 .     Article 13 § 4 provides that all public associations are equal before the law. Article 13 § 5 provides that it is prohibited to create and operate public associations which aim, or act with the aim, to make a forcible change to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, to undermine its territorial integrity or national security, to create paramilitary formations, or to incite social, racial, ethnic or religious discord. B.     Non-profit Organisations Act 56 .     The Non-profit Organisations Act (Federal Law no. 7-FZ of 12   January 1996) provides that non-profit organisations can be created to pursue social, charitable, cultural, educational, scientific or managerial aims, aims of protecting public health, developing sports activities, answering spiritual and other non-material needs, defending rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organisations, resolving disputes and conflicts, providing legal services and any other aims relating to the furthering of the common good (section 2(2)). 57 .     A non-profit organisation must be registered in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It acquires legal-entity status – including the right to own property, to open bank accounts, to acquire and exercise pecuniary and non-pecuniary rights and obligations and to act as a party in judicial proceedings – from the moment it is registered with the State (sections 3(1) and (3) and 13.1). 58.     State registration of a non-profit organisation may be refused in, inter alia , the following cases: (a) its articles of association do not comply with the requirements of Russian law; (b) the documents required for registration are incomplete or defective; or (c) the association’s name is insulting to the moral, national or religious feelings of citizens (section 23.1(1)). If the documents required for registration are incomplete or defective, the registration authority may suspend the registration procedure and set a time ‑ limit for correcting the defects (section 23.1(1.1) as in force since 1   August 2009). 59.     The refusal of registration may be appealed against to a higher registration authority or a court. Such a refusal does not prevent a new application for registration, provided that the defects identified have been remedied (section 23.1(5) and (6)). 60.     A non-profit organisation may take one of the following organisational forms: a public association, an autonomous non-profit organisation or other forms (section 2(3)). C.     Public Associations Act 61.     The Public Associations Act (Federal Law no. 82-FZ of 19 May 1995) provides that a public association may obtain legal-entity status through State registration or carry on its activities without State registration and without legal-entity status (section 3(4)). 62.     A public association may take one of the following organisational forms: a public movement, a public foundation, a political party, and so forth (section 7). 63.     The establishment and functioning of public associations whose aims or activities are extremist is prohibited (section 16(1)). 64.     A public association is established at a general conference, during which its articles of association are adopted and managing bodies are elected. From that moment on the public association acquires all rights and obligations under this Act, except the rights of a legal entity which are acquired at the moment of State registration (section 18(3) and (4)). 65.     State registration of a public association may be refused, inter alia , in the following cases: (a) its articles of association do not comply with the requirements of Russian law; (b) the documents required for registration are incomplete or defective; or (c) the association’s name is insulting to the moral, national or religious feelings of citizens. The refusal of registration may be appealed against to a higher authority or a court. Such a refusal does not prevent a new application for registration, provided that the defects identified have been remedied (section 23). 66 .     All public associations may disseminate information about their activities; hold public events; defend their rights and the rights of their members before the State and municipal authorities; make proposals and put forward initiatives to the State and municipal authorities concerning issues relating to their stated aims; and perform other activities allowed by law. In addition to the above activities, public association with legal-entity status may participate in the decision-making process of the State and municipal authorities; found mass-media outlets and carry out publishing activities; defend any person’s interest before the State and municipal authorities; make proposals and put forward initiatives to the State and municipal authorities concerning any issues; and participate in elections and referenda (section 27). Public associations with legal-entity status may also own property (section 30). D.     Suppression of Extremism Act 67.     The Suppression of Extremism Act (Federal Law no. 114-FZ of 25   July 2002) defines “extremist activities” as, among others: (i) forcible change to the foundations of the constitutional system and violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation; and (ii) incitement of social, racial, ethnic or religious discord. It further defines an “extremist organisation” as a public or religious association or other organisation in respect of which, and on grounds provided for in the Act, a court has made a ruling that has entered into legal force for its dissolution or for the prohibition of its activities on account of the carrying out of extremist activity (section 1). 68.     The creation and functioning of public or religious associations or other organisations whose objectives or activities are aimed at carrying out extremist activity is prohibited. If the authorities disclose indications of extremism in the activities of a public association, they must issue a warning to the association’s president. The authorities may set a time-limit for correction of the established defects. A warning may be appealed against to a court. If the warning is not appealed against, if it is upheld by the court, if the defects are not corrected within the established time-limit, or if within twelve months of the first warning indications of extremism are found for a second time in the association’s activities, a court may issue a dissolution order or, if the association does not have legal-entity status, ban its activities. A public association may also be dissolved or banned by a judicial decision if it carries out extremist activities which have resulted in a breach of the rights and freedoms of citizens or damage to the physical integrity or health of citizens, the environment, public order, public safety, property, the legitimate economic interests of natural or legal persons, the interests of society or the State, or which have created a real risk of such damage (sections 7 and 9). E.     Family Code 69 .     The Family Code provides that in order to conclude a marriage it is necessary for a man and a woman of marriageable age to express their free consent to the marriage (Article 12). F.     State Language Act 70 .     The State Language Act (Federal Law no. 53-FZ of 01 June 2005) provides that when the Russian language is used as the State language it is not permissible to use words or expressions which are incompatible with the modern academic norms of the language, except when it is necessary to use foreign words that have no adequate equivalent in Russian (section 1(6)). G.     Code of Civil Procedure 71 .     The 2002 Code of Civil Procedure provides that a procedural action for which a time-limit has been set may be performed before midnight on the last day of the specified period. The time-limit is complied with if the complaint, document or money concerned has been dispatched by post before midnight on the last day of the period in question (Article 108 § 3). 72 .     An appeal may be lodged within a month of the date when the first ‑ instance judgment has been delivered in its finalised form (Article 321 § 2). 73 .     Ruling no. 13 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of 19 June 2012 explains that the one-month time-limit for appeal starts to run from the day after a reasoned first-instance judgment has been delivered. If a reasoned judgment is not ready on the date of pronouncement, the judge pronounces the operative part of the judgment and informs the parties of the date when the reasoned judgment will be made available to them. The time ‑ limit is complied with if the appellant has dispatched the appeal submissions by post before midnight on the last day of the period in question. In that case the date is established by a postmark, a postal receipt or any other document confirming the dispatch date (paragraph 6). III.     RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS 74.     Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31   March 2010 at the 1081st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) states: “II.     Freedom of association 9.     Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, that the right to freedom of association can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, discriminatory administrative procedures, including excessive formalities for the registration and practical functioning of associations, should be prevented and removed; measures should also be taken to prevent the abuse of legal and administrative provisions, such as those related to restrictions based on public health, public morality and public order ... 11.     Member states should take appropriate measures to effectively protect defenders of human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons against hostility and aggression to which they may be exposed, including when allegedly committed by state agents, in order to enable them to freely carry out their activities in accordance with the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities. 12.     Member states should ensure that non-governmental organisations defending the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are appropriately consulted on the adoption and implementation of measures that may have an impact on the human rights of these persons.” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 75.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications. II.     ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION BY MR ALEKSEYEV 76 .     The Government submitted that Mr Alekseyev had abused the right of individual application by insulting the judges of the Court on his social networking accounts. The relevant Convention provision reads as follows: Article 35 “3.     The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that: (a)     the application is ... an abuse of the right of individual application; ...” 77.     By letter of 21 January 2019 the Government informed the Court that after the delivery of the judgment in the case of Alekseyev and Others v.   Russia (nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, 27 November 2018), Mr