CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s550CD9ED { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s52668D90 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s98EC6975 { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sFC916575 { height:35.65pt } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1C2B10C2 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23CD0580 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     Communicated on 6 March 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32401/10 TAGANROG LRO and others against Russia and 21 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     Lists of the applications and applicants are set out in Annexes 1 and 2. The circumstances of the individual cases are set out below. A.     Background information on Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia 2.     Jehovah’s Witnesses have been present in Russia since 1891. They were banned soon after the Russian Revolution in 1917 and criminally persecuted in the Soviet Union. 3.     After the USSR Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations was enacted in 1990, on 27 March 1991 the RSFSR Ministry of Justice registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of The Religious Organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the USSR. On 11   December 1992 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of the Regional Religious Organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1998, the Administrative Centre was granted re-registration for the purposes of the new Religions Act (Federal Law no. 125-FZ of 26 September 1997). 4.     In order to carry out their religious worship and practice throughout Russia, under the auspices of the Administrative Centre, religious associations of Jehovah’s Witnesses are formed into groups or communities, called “congregations”. 5 .     In January 2007, a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation sent a letter to all prosecutors’ offices of the Russian Federation in which he claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses represented a public threat: “There are various branches of foreign religious and charitable organisations within the territory of Russia whose activities do not formally violate the provisions of Russian legislation but quite often promote the growth of tension in society. Representatives of foreign religious associations (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, etc.), followers of various eastern faiths, and followers of Satanism form branches that frequently carry out activities that damage the moral, mental, and physical health of their members.” He directed the subordinate prosecutors as follows: “To investigate whether territorial agencies of the Federal Service for oversight of compliance with the mass communications law ... properly fulfil their legal duty to detect extremist material in the media owned by religious associations (Church of Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other religious organisations that have their own printing agencies).” B.     Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses before the Court 6.     The Court has so far examined three applications from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. 7.     The case Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia (no. 184/02, 11 January 2007) concerned disruption of a religious meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses from the Chelyabinsk congregation by the Regional Ombudswoman with the assistance of the police. Observing that the actions of the local officials lacked any legal basis, the Court found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. A similar complaint concerning disruption of a Jehovah’s Witness’ meeting in the Moscow Region is now pending before the Court (see Krupko and Others v. Russia , no. 26587/07). 8.     In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (no. 302/02, 10 June 2010), the Court found that the refusal to allow the Moscow congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to obtain re-registration for the purposes of the new Religious Act and its subsequent liquidation by a judicial decision and the banning of its activities had been in breach of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention. 9.     Most recently, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention arising from the disclosure of the applicants’ medical records for the purposes of an investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office into the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in St Petersburg (see Avilkina and Others v. Russia , no. 1585/09, 6 June 2013). С.     The liquidation of the Taganrog organisation, confiscation of its meeting hall and the ban of 34 publications (application no.   32401/10) 10.     The first applicant in this application, the Taganrog local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the “Taganrog LRO”), was first registered by the Department of Justice of the Rostov Region as a religious association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the city of Taganrog on 22 May 1992. On 15 December 1998 it was re-registered by the Rostov Region Department of Justice as a local religious organisation operating within the structure of the second applicant, the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. The third and fourth applicants are publishers of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious literature. The fifth to sixteenth applicants are the twelve congregations which share the same place of worship (the “Kingdom Hall”) with the first applicant. 11.     In response to the circular letter from the deputy Prosecutor General (see paragraph 5 above), on 13 September 2007 a deputy Rostov Regional Prosecutor directed all town and district prosecutors to carry out inspections of the religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Structures of the foreign religious organisation (FRO) of Jehovah’s Witnesses, registered ... in the Rostov Region, are actively functioning in the territory of Rostov Region (RR). The organisation, as a matter of course, refuses to recognise the State authority in the countries in which its branches are located. The activity of the FRO has been banned in several jurisdictions. Despite having official registration, in the course of carrying out their cult activity followers of the FRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly commit violations of Russian law. In particular, they preach refusal to fulfil civil responsibilities (serving in the army, paying taxes, commission of administrative and criminal offences). They forbid their adherents from accepting medical assistance in the form of blood transfusions resulting in death or serious harm being caused to their health, including that of children. An outstanding feature of the organisation is the aggression it openly displays towards representatives of other religious confessions, and the active propaganda of the teachings of the FRO and activity in recruiting new adherents to the organisation, the number of which in the territory of the region already exceeds 5,000 persons. The given circumstances are grounds for the possible rise of serious conflicts in the interfaith sphere ... The findings of a religious expert study of several printed publications that had been distributed by the Jehovists in the Rostov Region, carried out in August of this year by the Rostov Center for Court Expert Studies indicate that they contain indications of incitement to religious enmity. On the basis of the above, it is necessary for you to organise and conduct thorough investigations of local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses located in your jurisdictions, together with the territorial agencies of the Federal Security [Service] and the registration service, and to take all possible reactive measures, including examining the question of preparing and sending to courts applications to liquidate local organisations in connection with committed violations of law, and to inform the regional prosecutor’s office with details of reactive measures by 10 October 2007.” 12.     The expert study to which the deputy prosecutor referred, had been commissioned on 2 August 2007 by the acting prosecutor of the Tarasovskiy district of the Rostov Region with a view to determining whether or not a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ books and magazines contained “indications of inciting hatred or hostility, or of debasing human dignity on account of one’s attitude toward religion, or of advocating the exclusivity of one religion in comparison with another”. An expert from the Rostov Centre for Forensic Studies found that, while the texts studied contained elements of hatred towards the “Christendom”, that is all religious movements recognising Jesus Christ and the Bible except Jehovah’s Witnesses, there were no expressions inciting hostility which could encourage readers to take action aimed at the destruction of the object of hatred. The texts also advocated the exclusivity of one religion, inasmuch as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ movement pronounced itself to be the only true religion, whereas all other Christian religions were seen to be Satanic. 13.     In pursuance of the Rostov Regional prosecutor’s letter of 13   November 2007 and referring to the findings of the expert study, on 31   October 2007 the acting deputy Taganrog prosecutor issued a warning to the Taganrog LRO, advising it “to stop extremist activities”. The Taganrog LRO sent a written reply, considering the warning to be unlawful; however, it did not challenge the warning in court. 14.     The Taganrog prosecutor’s office also pursued other lines of investigation into the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the region. Thus, on 17 October 2007 a senior assistant to the Taganrog prosecutor requested the head doctor of the city hospital to provide a copy of the medical record of Ms T. Salnikova who had been treated in the hospital in 2004, as well as the contact details of the doctor in charge of the treatment and the head of the intensive care unit at that time. Ms Salnikova had been one of the founding members of the Taganrog LRO; on 17 March 2004 she had been admitted to the hospital following a serious motor vehicle accident. Throughout her treatment, she requested that the doctors should refrain from administering blood products. On 8 April 2004, Ms Salnikova died due to her extensive injuries. Both the post-mortem diagnosis and the medical examiner who conducted forensic autopsy for the purposes of a criminal investigation against the driver concurred that her death had been caused by trauma, posthemorrhagic anemia and multiple organ failure. 15.     On 9 June 2008 the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s office filed a claim in the Rostov Regional Court to liquidate the Taganrog LRO. The stated grounds for liquidation were: (a)     the death of Ms Salnikova which was alleged to have been the consequence of her refusal of blood transfusion; (b)     the continued distributed of religious literature which the expert study had found to contain indications of extremism; (c) the fact that the Taganrog LRO had held services of worship outside the city of Taganrog; (d)     the materials of a criminal case against Mr G. who had been convicted, by judgment of 1 November 2005, of refusing to accept alternative civilian service which was to be carried out at a factory connected with the military. Mr G. was not a member of the Taganrog LRO; (e)   the failure to amend the list of founders of the Taganrog LRO following Ms Salnikova’s death; (f)     the omission of the full details of the publishing religious organisation in selected printed materials of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 16.     At the first hearing the prosecutor asked the Regional Court to appoint a composite psycho-linguistic religious expert study that should be carried out at the Southern Regional Centre of Forensic Studies by the expert Mr A. who would have the task of determining whether or not sixty-eight publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses incited religious discord, gave a negative assessment of other religions, contained calls to refuse medical assistance, etc. The representatives of the Taganrog LRO proposed to the court a different set of questions for the study and a selection of institutions to whom it could be assigned. The Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s request, endorsing all of the prosecutor’s and some of the defendant’s questions and assigning the study to the Southern Region Centre “for the sake of expediency”. The Taganrog LRO’s appeal against the Regional Court’s determination was rejected on 9 September 2008 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The study was completed on 15 July 2009. 17.     The Taganrog LRO sought by oral and written motions to join the Administrative Centre (the second applicant), Wachtturm Germany (the third applicant), and Watchtower New York (the fourth applicant) as parties to the proceedings, since collectively they were responsible for the printing, publishing, and distribution of the religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. All such motions were denied. 18.     On 11 August 2009, the prosecutor supplemented his claim in the case with the request that the sixty-eight publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses (as per the same list that had been submitted for a composite study) be declared extremist material. Then, on 7 September 2009, the prosecutor again amended its claim by requesting that the Taganrog LRO not only be liquidated but also be declared an extremist organisation, that its property be turned over to the Russian Federation, and that sixty-eight religious publications be confiscated. 19.     By judgment of 11 September 2009, the Rostov Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s claim, ordering the liquidation of the Taganrog LRO as an extremist organisation and the banning of its activities. The Regional Court founded its judgment on the following evidence. 20 .     The Regional Court fully endorsed the findings of the composite expert study which established that thirty-four publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses contained “indications of inciting religious discord, refusal of blood or refusal of civil duties”: “Assessing the research conducted by the experts and taking into account their oral statements at the trial, the court has reached the conclusion that part of the literature and printed publications distributed by the [Taganrog] LRO contain a number of expressions ... demonstrating the negative attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses toward various elements of traditional Christianity, a negative image of Catholicism as a traditional Christian denomination, and a sharply negative assessment by one religious group, including accompanying illustrations directed at the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. The literature contains information capable of undermining the reader’s respect for Christian religions (except Jehovah’s Witnesses) and for their Christian religious figures, and also contains expressions and content urging [people] to leave other Christian religions (false religions) and to join the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Such appeals are expressed in various forms–declarations of intent, directives, pleading, appeals, and advice. To exert psychological influence on the consciousness of the perceiver, manipulative devices are used.” The Regional Court referred to the statements by two Orthodox priests and five Orthodox believers who claimed having been offended by the Witnesses’ criticism of Orthodox Christianity. On the basis of their testimony, the Regional Court found that the Witnesses’ literature and views “outrage religious feelings, provoke conflict on interreligious grounds, and inflame religious discord”. 21.     On the charge of incitement to refuse medical assistance, the Regional Court took evidence from Ms Salnikova’s husband and the head of emergency unit. They confirmed that after the accident Ms Salnikova had been repeatedly offered blood transfusion which she had firmly refused, citing her religious duty as a Jehovah’s Witness. In the doctor’s opinion, the medicine her fellow believers had brought for her had not been the kind of the blood substitutes that she had needed. On the basis of the above-mentioned expert study, the testimony by witnesses and Ms Salnikova’s medical record, the Regional Court considered it established that – “...the refusal of a blood transfusion did lead to a fatal outcome since other methods of treatment turned out to be ineffective. [The court] takes into account that the establishment of the fact that harm caused to the health of at least one person is a proven gross violation of law, which would exclude further activity of the LRO.” 22.     On the issue whether the Taganrog LRO advocated abandonment of civic duties, the Regional Court again referred to the expert study and also heard an official of the Taganrog military drafting office. He stated that in 2007 Mr G. had been one of ten conscripts who professed the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He had learnt of the existence of the Taganrog LRO from two young men who were on their way to serve when “attempts were made to influence them not to serve”. Mr G. had refused a specific assignment to perform alternative civilian service, for which he was found criminally liable. The Regional Court found this evidence sufficient to conclude that a breach of the law on the part of Mr G. had been the product of the influence of the Taganrog LRO: “...the evidence produced at the trial confirms the fact that the Taganrog LRO committed actions inciting citizens to refuse to fulfill civic duties established by law. Those actions included distributing among believers of literature containing such appeals ... and the influencing of citizens of conscription age not professing the said religion to refuse to perform military service. The last allegation is based on the testimony of the witness ... from the Taganrog military drafting office [who] testified that he learned of the existence of conscripted believers in the spring of 2007 during the spring call-up, when conscripted young men approached him and said that other conscripted persons were influencing them to refuse to undergo service in the army.” 23.     The Regional Court further considered the prosecutor’s allegation that the Taganrog LRO involved minors in its activities. The prosecution produced two witnesses: Mr S., former husband of a Jehovah’s Witness, stated that his former wife involved their child in the religious activities, despite his objections. He had sought a judicial order for amending the custody arrangements but it had been refused because his former wife and a child had “excellent living conditions”. The second witness, Ms B., an official of the Child Protection Authority, related the case of a sixteen-year-old student who had fallen behind in her studies because she had missed classes twice a week to visit a Sunday school. In the end the child was helped and the girl finished school. Two witnesses for the respondent, the former wife of Mr S. and another Witness mother, told the court that they read Bible together with their children and attended religious meetings twice a week but they did not celebrate birthdays or State holidays. The Regional Court drew the following conclusion from the testimony before it: “The testimony ... objectively confirms the arguments in the application regarding minor children being lured into the organisation’s activity, including into the preaching activity, as small or minor children are being obliged, together with their parents, regardless of weather or time of year, to go on the streets and to apartments with the goal of distributing literature, and to be present for long periods of time at discussions at meetings ... The circumstances established during the trial testify to the violation by the religious organisation and its members of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Russian Constitution, and the Russian Family Code, as they involve very young children in the religious organisation without the consent of the other parent, who has equal rights and duties in the upbringing of the children, and do not consider the opinion and interests of the children. The actions of the members of the Taganrog LRO constitute a direct violation of the provisions of Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which establishes that the States Parties recognise the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child, and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts. The testimony of the witnesses who are members of the organisation, to the effect that they visit the park with their children, take trips to the zoo, and spend time with their children in nature, does not attest to the parents’ ensuring conditions for the full and comprehensive development of the children, since all these activities only take place with the participation of other members of the organisation. Not one of the witnesses demonstrated that their children actively participate in sports or in any type of sports leagues, are receiving a musical education, or are interested in and attending hobby groups of any kind, all of which are necessary for a comprehensive development of personality, abilities, and interests.” 24.     The Regional Court also found that the activities of the Taganrog LRO led to destruction of family relations on account of religious differences. The court referred to the findings of the expert study to the effect that “faith in God takes priority over family relationships” and that “non-belief on the part of a spouse or children is considered to be a basis for marital instability ... and also for termination of relations with the non-believing family member”. It also took evidence from Mr St., director of the Consultative Centre, an entity aligned with the Orthodox Church, who told the court that Mr S. (see above) and Mr K. had sought his advice on how to prevent their families from breaking-up because of their wives’ involvement in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ work. Mr S. and Mr K. confirmed that before the court. Five witnesses who testified about their harmonious relationships with their spouses were deemed unreliable by the Regional Court: according to the court, Mr V., a non-believer, did not speak the truth because “his wife was in attendance in the courtroom during his testimony” and the four religious witnesses had a vested interest in “continuing the activities of the organisation, of which they were members”. 25.     Finally, the Regional Court considered it established that the Taganrog LRO “had encroached on the personality, rights and freedoms of citizens”. That charge had two facets: on the one hand, the Taganrog LRO “determined how the believers’ free time [was to be] spent and forbade them to celebrate holidays and birthdays”, and on the other hand, the members of the LRO preached at homes without an invitation, “without giving heed to the opinion of persons whom they visited and with whose private life they interfered”. 26 .     On the strength of the above evidence, the Regional Court pronounced the Taganrog LRO to be an extremist organisation and ordered that it be liquidated, banned in its activities and removed from the Rostov register of legal entities and that its property, including a building in Taganrog (known as the “Kingdom Hall”) and the adjacent plot of land, be confiscated and transferred to the State. Thirty-four publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared extremist material and also confiscated (see the list in Annex 2). 27.     The Taganrog LRO filed a 125-page statement of appeal, in which it dissected every aspect of the Regional Court’s judgment and complained in particular that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had been singled out for persecution and discrimination. It referred to the prosecutor’s letters which explicitly targeted the organisation, to the press publications about the trial, and to the fact that the Regional Court took evidence from Orthodox priests, avowedly Orthodox Cossacks and the director of an Orthodox-affiliated centre Mr St. 28.     On 8 December 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the appeal in a summary fashion, without addressing its arguments in detail. On the same day it rejected an application by the Administrative Centre requesting that it be heard as a party to the proceedings. D.     Banning of religious publications 1.     Banning of eighteen publications in the Altay Region (application no.   44285/10) 29.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Gorno-Altaysk (“the Gorno-Altaysk LRO”), the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, the German and US publishers of Jehovah’s Witnesses literature, the Gorno-Altaysk congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses comprising 34 members, and a Russian national Ms   Irina Aleksandrovna Rogovaya, born in 1960 and resident in Gorno-Altaysk, who is a member of the Gorno-Altaysk congregation. 30.     On 22 December 2008, the Gorno-Altaysk town prosecutor filed an application with the Gorno-Altaysk Town Court to declare extremist 27 religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He relied on the findings of a study by unidentified experts who had found that the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaim the superiority of their religion and exercise negative influence on a person’s “willpower and conduct ... with the use of methods of Neuro-Linguistic Programming”. [1] 31.     The Gorno-Altaysk LRO and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia were authorised to join the proceedings as interested parties. 32.     On 10 February 2009 the prosecutor successfully applied to increase the list of religious publications comprising his claim to 29. At the prosecutor’s further request, the court commissioned a composite psycho-linguistic religious expert study of the 29 religious publications. 33.     Upon completion of the expert study on 4 May 2009, the prosecutor reduced his claim from 29 to 23 religious publications. The court further reduced the number of religious publications under scrutiny to 18, by withdrawing from consideration 5 religious publications previously held to be extremist by the Rostov Regional Court on 11 September 2009. 34.     On 7 June 2009 the police searched the place of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Gorno-Altaysk confiscating hundreds of items of religious literature. They also searched the private homes of Mr Aleksandr Kalistratov, the representative of the Gorno-Altaysk LRO, and Ms Irina Rogovaya, the sixth Applicant, confiscating religious literature and personal property. 35 .     On 1 October 2009 the Town Court declared extremist eighteen religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses (one brochure, seven Awake! magazines, and ten Watchtower magazines, see Annex 2). The court endorsed in their entirety the findings of the expert study of 4 May 2009 and held as follows: “Evaluating the research conducted by the experts and taking into consideration their statements before the court, the court has come to the conclusion that the printed publications, including the magazines Awake! and The Watchtower , and the brochure What Does God Require of Us? , contain a series of expressions demonstrating a negative attitude on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses toward various elements of traditional Christianity and a negative image of Catholicism as a branch of traditional Christianity; contain a sharply negative assessment of a particular religious group and contain information capable of undermining the respect of the reader for a Christian religion – other than that of Jehovah’s Witnesses –and its Christian religious figures; and also contains incitement to leave other Christian religions (false religions) and join the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, those incitements being expressed in various forms of declaration of will: directives, wishes, appeals, counsel ... Based on the psychological analysis of the texts, it was unequivocally concluded that they were negative propaganda, containing advocacy of the superiority of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings and the inferiority of other religions.” The Town Court ordered that these religious publications be confiscated and also included on the federal List of Extremist Materials. 36.     The Gorno-Altaysk LRO and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia submitted an appeal in which they exposed, in particular, a biased choice of the experts and defective methods that were used for conducting the study. They also pointed out that, although the Town Court had commissioned a composite study that should have included a religious component, no expert in religious studies had taken part in the study. 37.     On 27 January 2010 the Supreme Court of the Altay Republic rejected the appeal in a summary fashion, endorsing the judgment of the Town Court. 2.     Banning of three publications in the Rostov Region (application no.   2269/12) 38.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the city of Salsk (“the Salsk LRO”), the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia as the importer and distributor of the religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the German and US publishing houses. 39.     Following a complaint by a member of the public asserting that certain publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaim the superiority of their religion over others, on 27 August 2008 the Salsk Town Prosecutor ordered a linguistic expert study to be conducted on the literature concerned. On 18   September 2008 the expert concluded that the texts did not contain signs of extremism but that they “may cause the incitement of hostility to other religions” and “contain traces of propaganda of the superiority of one religion over others”. These tentative findings were sufficient for the two prosecutor to file, on 18 December 2008, filed an application with the Salsk Town Court to declare extremist twelve religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Salsk LRO was designated as the defendant and the Administrative Centre was admitted, at its request, as a co-defendant. 40.     The prosecutor motioned for the court to order a psychological linguistic religious expert study on the twelve publications, to be performed by the Southern Regional Centre for Forensic Studies in Rostov-on-Don, which at the time was in the process of conducting a similar expert study in the case concerning the liquidation of the Taganrog LRO (see paragraph 20 above). Upon the defendants’ request, the Town Court ruled to commission the study to the Federal Centre for Forensic Studies of the Ministry of Justice in Moscow. However, the Regional Court quashed that decision and the study was entrusted to the Rostov Centre, as requested by the prosecutor. 41.     On 30 March 2011 the study was completed. The experts concluded that four publications contained statements capable of “undermining respect, or of evoking hostile feelings, towards religions other than Jehovah’s Witnesses” and information “about the exclusivity and moral superiority of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. 42.     At the hearing on 1 June 2011, the Town Court dismissed motions requesting the participation of the German and US publishers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses literature as co-defendants or third parties, finding that the proceedings did not determine their rights or obligations. 43.     On 27 June 2011 the Town Court granted the prosecutor’s application in part, ruling to pronounce the nine of the twelve publications extremist, in spite of the fact that six of them had already been pronounced extremist by the Rostov Regional Court (see paragraph 26 above) or the Zavodskiy District Court of Kemerovo (see below). In so ruling, the Town Court extensive quoted from, and fully endorsed the findings of, the expert studies of 18 September 2008 and 30 March 2011. 44.     The Salsk LRO, the Administrative Centre, the publishers and three individual Jehovah’s Witnesses all filed statements of appeal; however, only those by the Salsk LRO and the Administrative Centre were accepted for examination. 45.     On 13 October 2011 the Regional Court heard the appeals with the same judge-rapporteur who had previously ruled to pronounce 34 publications extremist and to liquidate the Taganrog LRO (see paragraph 26 above). The applicants’ objections as to her partiality were dismissed as unfounded. 46.     The same day, the Regional Court quashed the part of the Town Court’s judgment pronouncing extremist five of the six publications that were already on the Federal List of Extremist Materials, but upheld the judgment regarding the remaining four publications pronounced extremist and the three pronounced not extremist. 3.     Banning of four publications in Krasnodar (application no.   2269/12) 47.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the city of Krasnodar (“the Krasnodar LRO”), Mr Vasiliy Dmitrievich Chukan and Mr Aleksandr Vasilyevich Tkachenko who are Jehovah’s Witnesses from Krasnodar, as well as the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, and the German and US publishers. 48.     On 11 March 2009 the Krasnodar regional prosecutor filed an application with the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar, requesting that four publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses – which had been allegedly discovered in a public park – be pronounced extremist: the 15 March 2007, 15 August 2007, and 15 October 2007 editions of The Watchtower magazine, and the book Draw Close to Jehovah . The claim was based on the findings of a linguist from the Krasnodar regional police. The Krasnodar LRO was listed as being an interested party in the case. 49.     The 15 March 2007 edition of The Watchtower magazine and the book Draw Close to Jehovah were among the publications already being examined by Rostov Regional Court, which on 11 September 2009 pronounced them extremist (see paragraph 26 above and Annex 2). By the same judgment, the 15 August 2007 edition of The Watchtower magazine was pronounced as not containing signs of extremism. 50.     The Administrative Centre and four individual Jehovah’s Witnesses including the applicants Mr Chukan and Mr Aleksandr filed motions to be admitted to the proceedings as interested parties. The District Court granted the motion of the Administrative Centre and rejected those by individuals. 51.     On 29 June 2009 the District Court appointed a complex psychological linguistic expert study of the publications, to be carried out by the Southern Regional Centre for Forensic Studies in Rostov. The study was completed on 18 February 2011. The experts found that the literature contained indications of disrespectful or hostile attitude to religions other than Jehovah’s Witnesses and of their superiority over other religions, but that there were no statements inciting religious hatred or calls for enmity or violent acts against any other social or religious group. 52.     Relying on the findings of the expert study, on 22 April 2011 the District Court granted the prosecutor’s application in full and pronounced the four publications extremist. It rejected the expert studies that had been supplied by the defence on the grounds that the experts had not been advised of criminal liability and that the studies had been carried out at the request of a party to the case. 53.     The Krasnodar LRO and the Administrative Centre filed statements of appeal. Further appears were lodged by the individual applicants who alleged a violation of their right to use religious literature for worship, and the publishing houses. 54.     On 16 August 2011 the Krasnodar Regional Court examined the appeals and dismissed them, endorsing the judgment of the District Court in its entirely. It rejected as unfounded, without elaboration, the complaints by the individual applicants and the publishing houses that the District Court’s judgment determined their rights and obligations without giving them an opportunity to take part in the proceedings. The Regional Court’s judgment is silent on the issue that three of the four publications had already been ruled upon by the Rostov Regional Court in its judgment of 11 September 2009. 4.     Banning of six publications in Kemerovo (application no.   2269/12) 55.     The applicants include the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses “Tsentralnaya” in the city of Kemerovo (“the Kemerovo LRO”), five individual Jehovah’s Witnesses: Mr Igor Yuryevich Ananyin from the city of Asbest in the Sverdlovsk Region, Mr Sergey Mikhaylovich Kuzovlev and his wife, Ms Marina Iskandarovna Ivannikova, from the town of Rezh in the Sverdlovsk Region, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Bulkin, Mr   Viktor Ilyich Zvyagin, and Mr Igor Vasilyevich Potapov from Kemerovo, as well as the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, and the German and US publishers. 56.     In circumstances unknown to the applicants, the Kemerovo town police obtained a number of publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The deputy chief of the Centre for the Suppression of Extremism sent them to the linguist of the Kemerovo State University for linguistic examination. 57.     On 2 August 2010 the linguist returned his findings, according to which the book The Bible—God’s Word or Man’s? , the brochure Keep on the Watch! , and four issues of the Watchtower and Awake! magazines incited to enmity and hatred towards Catholicism and Catholic priests. He acknowledged that the publications did not contain calls to violence or other unlawful actions. 58.     The expert’s report was sent to the Zavodskiy district prosecutor who filed an application on 22 September 2010 to the Zavodskiy District Court of Kemerovo requesting that the six publications be pronounced extremist. The hearing took place on 28 October 2010. No one of the applicants was summoned to participate as parties to the case. On the basis of the expert’s report as the sole piece of evidence, the District Court granted the prosecutor’s application and declared the publications extremist. 59.     The applicants only became aware of the decision when the publications appeared on the Federal List of Extremist Materials after it had been updated on 18 January 2011 on the Web site of the Ministry of Justice. 60.     Between 25 and 27 January 2011, fifteen Jehovah’s Witnesses from Kemerovo, including the individual applicants, the Administrative Centre and the publishing houses filed statements of appeal. On 28 March 2011 the District Court rejected the appeals, holding that as the applicants had not participated in the 28 October 2010 hearing, they did not have the right to appeal against the decision. 61.     The applicants challenged the refusal to consider their appeals before the Regional Court. On 8 July 2011 the Kemerovo Regional Court rejected the complaint, finding that the District Court’s judgment of 28 October 2010 did not interfere with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion. 5.     Banning of two further publications in Kemerovo (application no.   2269/12) 62.     The applicants are the same as in the above proceedings, with the exception of Mr Kuzovlev and Ms Ivannikova. 63.     The circumstances of these proceedings are similar to those described above. The Centre for the Suppression of Extremism of the Kemerovo police had somehow obtained a number of publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses which were then given, on 14 February 2011, to a linguist for expert examination. The expert returned his findings two days later, he concluded that two brochures incited to hatred towards other Christian denominations, without, however, containing calls for any specific action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. 64.     The expert’s findings served as the basis for the Zavodskiy district prosecutor’s application to the Zavodskiy District Court, requesting it to pronounce the brochures extremist. On 30 May 2011 the District Court granted the application, without summoning the applicants or any other interested parties. 65.     After the applicants became aware of that decision from the 18 July 2011 update of the Ministry of Justice’s Federal List of Extremist Materials, they unsuccessfully attempted to lodge statements of appeal which were disallowed by the District Court. 6.     Banning of a new edition of the same book in Krasnoyarsk (application no. 74387/13) 66.     The applicants are Ms Zinich, a Jehovah’s Witnesses from Krasnoyarsk, the Administrative Centre and the German publishing house. 67.     On 20 March 2012 the head of the Central Military District of the Federal Security Service wrote to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor in Krasnoyarsk that they had been carrying out “operational-investigative measures aimed at suppressing the extremist activity of followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” to prevent them from “recruiting military personnel of military units of the Krasnoyarsk garrison into the destructive activity of the religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. As a result of these measures, they seized a copy of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published in Germany in 2009, that was identical in its contents to the earlier 2005 edition which had already been pronounced to be extremist by the Rostov Regional Court in 2009 (see paragraph 26 above). The FSB requested the prosecutor to institute judicial proceedings to have the 2009 edition also declared extremist. 68.     On 28 April 2012 the prosecutor filed such an application with the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk. 69.     By judgment of 14 February 2013, the District Court granted the prosecutor’s application, finding that the 2009 edition was identical in its contents to the 2005 edition which had been pronounced extremist. 70.     The Administrative Centre appealed against the District Court’s decision and its appeal was examined and rejected by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 20 May 2013. The appeals by the applicant Ms Zinich and the German publishing house were disallowed on the ground that they were not parties to the proceedings. 7.     Banning of one brochure in Krasnoyarsk (application no. 79240/13) 71.     The applicants are two individual Jehovah’s Witnesses (Mr Verish and Mr Zinich) from Krasnoyarsk, the Administrative Centre and the German publishing house. 72.     On 13 June 2012 the FSB wrote to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor that they had prevented the Jehovah’s Witnesses from carrying out extremist activities and recruiting military personnel and had seized thirteen publications which had the characteristics of extremist material. 73.     On 25 June 2012 the prosecutor filed an application with the Sovietskiy District Court, requesting that the court pronounce extremist the brochure entitled Will You Follow Jehovah’s Loving Guidance? By way of justification, the prosecutor referred to the expert opinion: “Based on clear declarations by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the submitted materials that all non-Christian religions are clearly false and that unnamed movements are false, together with the emphasis on the true nature of the teachings of Jeho