CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6478469E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3283E4F4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF5DC77FC { margin-left:2.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE9021CBE { width:184.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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 } .s1B1D10B4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD18D10F6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s39FC6473 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF0E7BF98 { width:106.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s50B07936 { width:7.36%; 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 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF42A5414 { width:54.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE92D7983 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD370BC15 { width:21.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s80B38151 { width:7.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6519986F { width:54.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC545250 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE5EED0ED { width:21.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 13918/06)     JUDGMENT   Art 11 • Freedom of association • Disproportionate dissolution of “National Bolshevik Party” (NBP) association • Insufficiently justified refusal by authorities to register the NBP political party   STRASBOURG 14 September 2021     FINAL   17/01/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Savenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Georges Ravarani,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13918/06) 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 five Russian nationals, listed in the Appendix (“the applicants”), on 15 February 2006; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning: (i) quashing the judgment of 16 August 2005 by way of supervisory review; (ii) dissolution of the applicants’ association; and (iii) refusal to register the applicants’ political party; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 25 May 2021 and 6 July 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case mainly concerns the dissolution of inter-regional public association “National Bolshevik Party” and the authorities’ refusal to register political party “National Bolshevik Party”. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were initially represented by Mr V. Varivoda and Mr   D.   Sirozhidinov, lawyers practising respectively in Moscow and the Moscow Region. Mr E.   Savenko and Mr A.   Averin were later represented by Mr   D.   Agranovskiy, a lawyer practicing in Moscow. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, then by her subsequent successors in that office, Mr M.   Galperin, and Mr M.   Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background 5.     The applicants were members of the executive managing body of the inter-regional public association “National Bolshevik Party” ( межрегиональная общественная организация «Национал-Большевистская Партия» ) (“the NBP association”) which had been registered on 8   September 1993 by the Moscow Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice. Mr Savenko was the chairman of the association. The NBP association was re-registered as a public association on 23 January 1997. Its articles of association mentioned that the NBP association could participate in elections by nominating candidates and arranging their election campaigns. 6.     In 2001 the Moscow Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice lodged a court claim against the NBP association seeking it to be struck out from the list of legal entities on the grounds that it had ceased its activity. They referred to the inspection record of 5 July 2001 which had established that the association was absent at the address of its registration. 7 .     On 27 September 2001 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the claim. It found that the NBP association had been functioning. It followed from their applications for registration of various changes in their documents lodged with the authorities between 1998 and 2000, and from evidence demonstrating significant increase in the number of its regional branches. By the time they had covered more than forty-five regions of Russia. The court also noted that although the association had not submitted reports on its annual activity, it had submitted various applications to the Russian Ministry of Justice. Those applications contained information relevant for annual reports. Dissolution of the NBP association Warning to the NBP association 8 .     On 14 July 2003, following entry into force of amendments to the Public Association Act (see paragraph 37 below), the Moscow Regional Justice Department issued a warning to the NBP association, having determined that the use of the word “party” in its name was in breach of section 28 of the Public Associations Act and section 6 of the Political Parties Act (see paragraphs 37 and 41 below). Furthermore, it was not permitted for the articles of associations to provide for participation in elections through nomination of candidates and electoral campaigning, that being the right reserved to political parties. The Justice Department required the NBP association to rectify the shortcomings within one month. The first attempt to rectify the shortcomings 9.     On 2 August 2003 the general congress of the NBP amended the articles of association. The word “party” in the association’s name was replaced with the word “order” (“ poryadok ” in Russian), so the change did not affect the abbreviated name. The reference to participation in elections was removed. The applicants submitted the amended text for State registration to the Moscow Regional Justice Department in August 2003. 10.     On 16 September 2003 the Moscow Regional Justice Department refused registration of the amended text, citing the absence of a document confirming the de facto presence of the management body at the declared address. According to the authority’s inspection visit, there had been no NBP’s office at that address (see paragraph 8 above). Suspension order 11 .     In the meantime, on 14 August 2003 the Moscow Regional Justice Department decided to suspend the activities of the NBP association for six months on account of its repeated failure to submit annual activity reports or to bring its articles of associations into conformity with the law. On 3   September 2003 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the appeal against that decision. The second and third attempts to rectify the shortcomings 12 .     At a general congress held on 20 April 2004 the NBP association made again the same amendments to the articles of associations which were submitted for registration on 15 June 2004. 13 .     On 14 July 2004 the Moscow Regional Justice Department again refused registration of the amendments. This refusal was founded on a typing error in the date of two – out of eighteen – minutes of regional conferences. The applicants unsuccessfully contested the second refusal before the Zyuzinskiy District Court. 14 .     On 7 June 2005 the NBP association re-submitted the amended articles of association for State registration. From the information in the Court’s possession it appears that no decision had been taken in respect of that application. Application for dissolution of the NBP association The first round of the proceedings 15 .     On 13 February 2004 the first deputy prosecutor of the Moscow Region lodged with the Moscow Regional Court an application for dissolution of the NBP association. He claimed that from 1998 to 2001 the NBP association had not submitted annual activity reports to the Moscow Regional Justice Department and that it had unlawfully used the word “party” in its name. Those facts amounted to repetitive and gross breaches of Russian law. 16.     On 29 June 2005 the Moscow Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s application for dissolution of the NBP association. The Regional Court found that the association had repeatedly and grossly violated federal law. 17 .     In particular, it failed to submit annual activity reports from July 1998 when the amended version of the articles of association had been last registered to August 2003 when its functioning had been suspended. In so far as the applicants claimed that activity reports had been submitted either directly to the Ministry of Justice or the Moscow Regional Tax Department, the Regional Court pointed out that by law, these bodies were not the intended recipients of the reports. 18.     Furthermore, the NBP association had failed to make good the breaches of the law – namely the unlawful use of the word “party” in its name and intention to participate in elections – which had already led to the decision on suspension of its activities in 2003. In the Regional Court’s view, that failure amounted to a gross violation of the law because there existed an explicit legal prohibition on the use of the word “party” by a public association. The fact that the NBP association had unsuccessfully sought registration of the amended text, was of no legal significance. The Regional Court held to dissolve the NBP association and to terminate its legal-entity status by striking it out of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. 19.     The applicants challenged the above decision before the Supreme Court of Russia. 20 .     On 16 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the challenge. It stated that the NBP association had not committed any violations which, according to section 44 of the Public Association Act (see paragraph 40 below) could result in its liquidation. It held that a failure to submit annual reports was not, in itself, a ground for dissolution of a public association. That failure only furnished the registration authority with the right to seek a court declaration that the association had ceased its activities and that its legal-entity status had expired. No such claim had been filed by the Moscow Regional Justice Department against the NBP association. As regards the failure to bring the articles of associations into conformity with the legal requirements, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the NBP association or its management acted illegally, refusing to make such amendments. On 2 August 2003 and 20 April 2004 two congresses ratified the amended version of the articles of association. In the Supreme Court’s view, the two applications for registration were dismissed for “shortcomings of minor importance”. The third request had not yet been examined. The absence of registration therefore did not amount to a gross violation of the law. The Supreme Court quashed the Moscow Regional Court’s judgment of 29 June 2005 and dismissed the prosecutor’s application. The second round of the proceedings 21.     On 26 August 2005 a deputy prosecutor general introduced an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 16 August 2005. He claimed, in particular, that a breach of the law would only be made good after the association had obtained State registration of the amended articles of association. The failure to secure registration of the amended version had been entirely imputable to the NBP association who had not complied with formal requirements. He also submitted that the management and members of the NBP association had repeatedly committed crimes and administrative offences of an extremist nature, whereas Mr Savenko had not formally and publicly dissociated himself from those acts. 22 .     On 21 September 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia found that “the prosecutor’s arguments worth consideration” and decided to reopen the proceedings by way of supervisory review. 23 .     On 5 October 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the prosecutor’s application and quashed the judgment of 16 August 2005, remitting the matter for a new appeal hearing. 24 .     On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia gave a new appeal judgment, upholding the Regional Court’s judgment of 29   June 2005 in its entirety and endorsing its reasoning based on section 44 of the Public Associations Act. According to the court, the dissolution was a legal consequence of the repeated and gross violations of the federal laws imposing on a public association an obligation to submit annual activity reports and banning the use of word “party” in the name of the associations which were not political parties. The judgment entered into legal force and on an unspecified date thereafter the NBP association was struck off the register of legal entities. Refusal to register the NBP political party 25.     On 29 November 2004 the applicants and other persons, in total 171   delegates from 57 Russian regions, held a founding congress of the political party “National Bolshevik Party” ( политическая партия «Национал-Большевистская Партия» , “the NBP party”). The congress decided to establish the NBP political party, adopted its articles of association and programme, elected fifteen members of the Political Council and the audit commission, and delegated the power to apply for State registration to the second and fifth applicants. Mr Savenko was elected president, Mr   Dmitriyev and Mr Fomchenkov were elected members of the Political Council. 26 .     The programme of the NBP party read as follows: “The principal aim of the National Bolsheviks Party is the transformation of Russia into a modern powerful State respected by other countries and peoples and loved by its own citizens. To that purpose it is now necessary: 1.     Let civil society freely develop in Russia. Limit the interference by the State with the public and private life of citizens ... 2.     Simplify registration of political parties or even abolish it. It should be sufficient to require a party to collect 200,000 signatures for participation in the elections ... 3.     Stop interference with functioning of independent media. Allow the television to criticise the actions by the Russian President and other high-ranking officials. 4.     Ensure public control over law-enforcement authorities ... 5.     Re-instate social benefits for a majority of the people ... 6.     Abolish privileges for State officials ... 7.     The cause of terrorist attacks on Russian cities is the Chechen war, and not some mythical ‘international terrorism’. The Chechen problem must be resolved in a fair and straightforward manner with the participation of all parties ... 8.     Focus the foreign policy on the protection of rights of ethnically Russian ( русского ) and Russian ‑ speaking population in those countries of the CIS and Baltics where their rights are being violated (Latvia, Estonia, Turkmenistan, etc.) Use all the legitimate means to that end, even economic sanctions and severance of diplomatic ties.” 27 .     On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused the application for registration of the NBP party on the following grounds: “[1] [1]     Documents required for State registration of a political party have not been submitted; the information in certain submitted documents does not meet the legal requirements. [2]     In breach of section 23 § 3 of the Political Parties Act prohibiting Russian citizens from being members of a political party until the age of 18, the Astrakhan and Tula regional branches have members younger than 18. [3]     Regional conferences held to elect the managing bodies and audit commission of regional branches were not quorate. The submitted documents do not contain information on the electoral quotient or how delegates had been elected or whom they had represented (in the Altay region, Samara region and others). [4]     Persons who were present at regional conferences and voted for management and audit bodies of regional branches were not party members. [5]     The founding congress of the political party was not quorate. In reality, only seventy persons were in attendance. [6]     The programme of the political party contains indications of ethnic affiliation because one of the aims is the protection of rights of ethnically Russian and Russian ‑ speaking population. This is in breach of section 9 of the Political Parties Act. [7]     Besides, the following documents required by section 5 § 1 of the Legal Entities Registration Act have not been submitted: the list of persons who have authority to act on behalf of the party, the information on economic activities.” 28.     The applicants contested the refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. They pointed out that the set of documents had been submitted in compliance with the exhaustive list in section 16 of the Political Parties Act (point 1 above). The list of persons who may act on behalf of the NBP party and the information on economic activities were incorporated in the articles of association (point 7 above). The allegations that regional conferences had not been quorate or included non-members or that certain members had been below 18 years of age (points 2, 3, 4 and 5 above) were unspecific and untrue. The Registration Service had not identified the persons involved, or referred to any concrete information on which such allegations had been based. Finally, as regards the alleged ethnic affiliation of the NBP party (point 6 above), the applicants drew a distinction between the protection of violated rights advocated in the programme and the protection of ethnic interests prohibited under section 9 of the Political Parties Act. 29.     In their written observations on the applicants’ claim, the Registration Service put forward more detailed information on certain grounds for their refusal. They named three party members in regional branches who had not attained the age of eighteen. Relying on a report compiled by a representative of the Registration Service Mr T. who had attended the founding congress of the NBP party, they maintained that the congress had not been quorate as only seventy persons had been in attendance. Finally, they claimed that the information on the electoral quotient and procedure for nomination of delegates to regional conference was lacking in all minutes of regional conferences, making determination of regional membership impossible. 30.     The applicants unsuccessfully asked the District Court to obtain attendance and examination of Mr T. It is not clear on what ground their request was refused. 31 .     On 13 April 2006 the Taganskiy District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. It found that, in refusing registration of the NBP party, the Federal Registration Service had lawfully acted within its competence. The District Court endorsed some of the grounds for refusal advanced by the Registration Service. It found that the applicants had not submitted the list of persons authorised to act on behalf of the party and the information on economic activities (point 7 above), that the party programme contained indications of ethnic affiliation, because the aim of the party was the protection of right of ethnically Russian population and Russian-speaking population (point 6 above), and that regional conferences had not been quorate (point 3 above). 32 .     In addition, the District Court advanced two new grounds for refusing registration. It noted that (i) the applicants had failed to produce documents confirming the party membership of the persons who had voted for the management and audit bodies; and that (ii) the party’s articles of association did not describe in sufficient detail the procedure for nomination, election and discharge of elected party officials, or set a time ‑ limit for holding general congresses. In the District Court’s view, “the lack of clarity of the articles of associations and the existing contradictions may lead to controversies and difficulties in its application”. Overall, the District Court concluded that the claim was ill-founded, because the impugned measure had not breached the rights and freedoms of the claimants enshrined by the domestic law and Article 11 of the Convention. 33.     On the day of the District Court hearing, fifteen members of the NBP came to the court’s building and participated in a scuffle. At least one of the NBP members was arrested thereafter and charged with participation in mass disorders, involving the use of gas guns, assault and battery (see Popkov v.   Russia , no.   32327/06, § 11, 15 May 2008). 34 .     The applicants appealed against the judgment of the Taganskiy District Court of 13 April 2006 to the Moscow City Court. The latter upheld the judgment of 13   April 2006 on 15 June 2006, endorsing in a summary fashion the findings of the District Court. Further developments 35 .     On 19 April 2007 the Moscow City Court at the request of the Moscow City prosecutor declared that the NBP association was “an extremist organisation” with the effect that any activity aimed at the resumption or restoration of the NBP’s association functioning amounted to a criminal offence. The Moscow City Court referred to the crimes of incitement to hatred committed by an organised group, calls to mass disorder, calls to acts of extremism, and acts of extremism committed in 2005-2006, as well as an incident of forced entry into the building of the legislative authority in St.   Petersburg during its session on 22 November 2006 and a violent disruption of voting during the elections of 11 March 2007. The court noted that despite the formal dissolution of the NBP association, it continued its activity illegally and that Mr Savenko had publicly acknowledged that fact in his interviews to Russian newspapers. Relying on the materials of criminal investigations, the court established that the acts of extremism in question had been linked to the NBP’s activity. Mr   Savenko had not publicly condemned those acts or alleged that the NBP had not been involved therein. 36 .     On 17 March 2020 Mr Savenko died. On 8   February 2021 Ms   Yekaterina Volkova, who was the wife of Mr Savenko from 2006 to 2008, expressed her wish and the wish of their common children with Mr   Savenko (Mr   Bogdan   Savenko born in 2006 and Ms   Aleksandra Savenko born in 2008) to pursue the proceedings before the Court in Mr   Savenko’s stead. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE The Public Associations Act (no. 82-FZ of 19 May 1995) 37 .     According to Federal Law no. 26-FZ of 12 March 2002, which introduced amendments to section 28 of the Public Association Act, public associations, except for political parties, may not use in their names the words “political”, “party” and their derivatives. The amendments entered into legal force on 14 July 2003. 38.     According to section 29 of the Act, public associations must submit to the registration authority, on an annual basis, a report on continuation of its activities, mentioning the current address of the standing management body, its name and information on its management. 39.     Section 42 of the Act provides that if a public association breaches the Constitution, federal constitutional laws, federal laws or other regulations, a competent registration authority or a prosecutor may require rectifying the violations and set out a time-limit for that. If the public association fails to do so within that time-limit, its activity may be suspended for up to six ‑ months. 40.     According to section 44, a public association may be dissolved by a judicial decision on an application by a prosecutor if it has (i) breached rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen; or (ii) repeatedly or grossly violated the Constitution, federal constitutional laws, federal laws or other regulations, or systematically engaged in activities contrary to the aims listed in its articles of association. Dissolution of a public association entails a ban on its activities. The Political Parties Act (no. 95-FZ of 11 July 2001) 41 .     Public associations that are not political parties may not use the word “party” in their names (section 6 § 6). 42 .     Establishment of political parties based on professional, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation is not allowed. The terms ‘professional, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation’ are to be interpreted as inclusion in the articles of association and programme of the political party of the aims of protection of professional, racial, ethnic or religious interests, as well as reference to those aims in the name of the political party (section 9 § 3). 43.     Section 16 § 1 contains an exhaustive list of documents to be submitted for State registration of a political party established by the founding congress. Paragraph 2 of the section prohibits State officials from requiring submission of any other documents. 44 .     According to section 20, the competent authority may refuse to register a political party if: (i) the party’s articles of association run counter to the requirements of domestic law; (ii) the party’s name and (or) its symbols run counter to the requirements of the Act; (iii) the party failed to submit the documents required by the law for its registration; (iv) the registration authority established that the content of the documents submitted did not comply with the requirements of domestic law; and if (v)   the party failed to comply with the time-limits provided for by the Act. 45 .     The above section states that the refusal to register a political party does not prevent it from applying for registration again, after rectification of the shortcomings indicated by the registration authority. 46.     A political party is the only kind of a public association that may nominate candidates in elections to State bodies (section 36 § 1). The Russian Code of Administrative Offences (N o .   195 ‑ FZ of 30 December 2001) 47 .     The Code of Administrative Offences provides for administrative liability for a failure to comply with a lawful order to rectify violations of domestic law (Article 19.5) or for failure to submit required information to state body (Article 19.7). Those administrative offences are punishable by fines imposed on legal entities or its officials. The Constitutional Court’s Ruling (n o . 18-P of 15   December 2004) 48 .     On 15 December 2004 the Russian Constitutional Court examined the issue as to whether section 9 § 3 of the Political Parties Act (see paragraph 42 above) was compatible with the Russian Constitution. In the relevant part the ruling reads as follows: “The principles of pluralist democracy, a multi-party system and a secular state that form the constitutional basis of the Russian Federation – in so far as they apply to legal regulation of the establishment and functioning of political parties, including conditions for their registration – may not be interpreted or implemented without regard to the particular features of Russia’s historic development, the ethnic and religious structure of Russian society and the specific character of interaction between the State, political power, ethnic groups and religious denominations. ... The principle of a secular state cannot be applied in the Russian Federation in the same way as in those countries that have a single-faith and single-nation social structure and boast a well-developed tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism. In particular, some of those countries have permitted the establishment of political parties based on Christian democratic ideology; in these cases, the term ‘Christian’ has moved beyond denominational confines and designates affinity with the European system of values and culture. In multinational and multi-denominational Russia, owing to the specific modus operandi of leading faiths ..., their influence on public life and their invocation in political rhetoric (which has historically been linked to the ethnic question), public consciousness is more likely to identify the terms ‘Christian’, ‘Orthodox’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Russian’, ‘Tartar’, etc. with specific denominations or ethnic groups, rather than with a system of values common to the Russian ( rossiyskiy ) people in its entirety. Furthermore, contemporary Russian society, including political parties and religious associations, has not yet acquired substantial experience of democratic co-existence. In these circumstances, parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation would inevitably strive to assert principally the rights of their respective ethnic and religious communities. Competition among parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation ... could lead to stratification of the multinational people of Russia instead of the consolidation of society, to the opposition of ethnic and religious values, exaltation of some and belittlement of others and, ultimately, to attributing predominant importance not to those values which are common to the entire nation but to those restricted to one ethnic ideology or religion, a result of which would be contrary to the Russian Constitution (Articles 13 and 14). The establishment of parties based on religious affiliation would open the door to the politicisation of religion and religious associations, political fundamentalism and the clericalisation of parties ... The establishment of parties based on ethnic affiliation could lead to a situation where representatives of parties advocating the interests of large ethnic groups - to the detriment of those of small ethnic groups -, would predominate in elected governing bodies; a situation which would violate the principle of equal rights irrespective of ethnic origin, established in the Russian Constitution (Article 6 §   2, Article 13 § 4, Article 19 § 2). Thus, the constitutional principle of a democratic and secular state, as applied in the particular social and historic context existing in the Russian Federation as a multinational and multi-denominational country, does not allow political parties to be established on the basis of ethnic or religious affiliation. For those reasons, in the face of unrelenting inter-ethnic and interdenominational tension and the ever-growing political demands of modern-day religious fundamentalism, when any religion-based distinction, once brought into the sphere of politics (and therefore, into the struggle for power), may acquire an ethnic dimension and lead to a division of society along ethnic and religious lines (a division, in particular, into Slavic-Christian and Turko-Muslim elements), the introduction into the Political Parties Act of a ban on the establishment of political parties based on ethnic or religious affiliation is compatible with the authentic meaning of Articles 13 and 14 of the Russian Constitution read together with its Articles 19 §§ 1 and 2, 28 and 29 ...” THE LAW locus standi 49.     The Court observes that after Mr Savenko’s death his former wife acting on her behalf and on behalf of their common children, who were minors, wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court instead of Mr   Savenko (see paragraph 36 above). 50.     The Government submitted that the individuals purporting to pursue the proceedings did not have locus standi , because they had failed to provide the Court with documents showing that they had accepted Mr   Savenko’s succession. Moreover, they had not been the parties to the domestic proceedings related to Mr Savenko’s complaints or members of the NBP. The striking out of the relevant part of the application would not prevent the Court from examining the legal issues raised by Mr Savenko, as it may continue the examination of the similar complaints raised by other applicants. 51.     The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant had died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. 52.     The Court reiterates that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant’s wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no.   73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Barakhoyev v. Russia , no. 8516/08, §§   22-23, 17 January 2017; Ksenz and Others v. Russia , nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 87 and 117, 12 December 2017; and Karastelev and Others v.   Russia , no.   16435/10, § 51, 6 October 2020). Also, human rights cases before the Court generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (ibid.). In cases involving complaints under Article 11 of the Convention the Court acknowledged locus standi of the applicants’ close relatives wishing to pursue the proceedings before it instead of the deceased applicants (see Szerdahelyi v.   Hungary , no.   30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012; Karpyuk and Others v.   Ukraine , nos.   30582/04 and 32152/04, § 90, 6   October 2015; Tuskia and Others v.   Georgia , no.   14237/07, §§ 48-50, 11   October 2018; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 50271/06 and 8   Others, §§ 8-11, 2 July 2019; and Dubrovina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 31333/07, §§   21-24, 25 February 2020). 53.     The Court is satisfied that Mr   Savenko’s children have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the application is pursued on behalf of the deceased applicant. It has no reason to doubt that they were in a sufficiently close relationship. However, the materials in the Court’s possession do not provide it with an opportunity to conclude so in respect of Mr Savenko’s former wife, given the relatively short marriage which had come to an end twelve years before Mr Savenko’s death and the lack of evidence of their close contact after the divorce. Thus, the Court concludes that Ms   A.   Savenko and Mr   B. Savenko have standing to pursue their late father’s complaints before the Court, and that Ms Ye. Volkova does not have that standing. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION on account of the dissolution of the nBp association 54 .     The applicants complained that the dissolution of the NBP association was not necessary in a democratic society and was disproportionate to the alleged breaches of the law. They relied on Article   11, which, in the relevant part reads as follows: “ 1.     Everyone has the right to ... freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ...” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 55 .     The Government claimed that the dissolution of the NBP association was a lawful measure taken within its margin of appreciation. It was a result of the repetitive breaches of reasonable requirements of domestic law, which the NBP association had failed to rectify within six-months’ time ‑ limit granted for that purpose by the authorities. The Government also pointed out that several members of that association, including Mr   A.   Averin had been convicted of various criminal offences, such as vandalism and hooliganism. The extremist activity of the NBP had no bearing on the proceedings which are in question in the present case. 56 .     The applicants alleged that the dissolution was neither lawful nor “necessary in a democratic society”. They had acted in good faith to comply with the requirements of domestic legislation. They had applied for registration of the amendments for three times, but the authorities dismissed their applications for no good reason. Their alleged failure to submit annual reports had already been assessed by the domestic courts in separate proceedings (see paragraph 7 above). Owing to the principle of res judicata it could not be considered as a serious violation. The Court’s assessment 57.     Decisions by the authorities to refuse to register, or to dissolve a group have been found to affect directly both the group itself and also its presidents, founders or individual members (see Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v.   Russia , no.   302/02, §   101, 10 June 2010, with further references; see also Islam-Ittihad Association and Others v. Azerbaijan , no.   5548/05, §   58, 13   November 2014, and Zhdanov and Others v.   Russia , nos .   12200/08 and 2 others, § 116, 16 July 2019). The applicants may therefore claim to be victims of the alleged violation. Moreover, the complaint at hand is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 58.     The parties maintained their submissions summarised in paragraphs   55-56 above. The Court’s assessment (a)    General principles 59.     The right to form an association is an inherent part of the right set forth in Article 11. Citizens should be able to form a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest. It is one of the most important aspects of the right to freedom of association, without which that right would be deprived of any meaning. The way in which national legislation enshrines this freedom and its practical application by the authorities reveal the state of democracy in the country concerned. Certainly States have a right to satisfy themselves that an association’s aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to review by the Convention institutions (see Sidiropoulos and Others v.   Greece , 10 July 1998, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV). 60.     While in the context of Article 11 the Court has often referred to the essential role played by political parties in ensuring pluralism and democracy, associations formed for other purposes are also important to the proper functioning of democracy. For pluralism is also built on the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts. The harmonious interaction of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion. It is only natural that, where a civil society functions in a healthy manner, the participation of citizens in the democratic process is to a large extent achieved through belonging to associations in which they may integrate with each other and pursue common objectives collectively (see Gorzelik and Others v.   Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 92, ECHR 2004-I, and Bączkowski and Others v.   Poland , no.   1543/06, §   62, 3 May 2007). 61.     The State’s power to protect its institutions and citizens from associations that might jeopardise them must be used sparingly, as