CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2015

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s15BDF7F4 { font-family:Arial; color:#1f497d } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     Communicated on 28 August 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 70090/10 EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN BAPTISTS CHURCH and Roman   Yuryevich   PANASENKO against Russia lodged on 7 November 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, Evangelical Christian Baptists Church ( Tserkov Yevangelskikh Khristian-Baptistov ), is a religious organisation registered in the town of Millerovo (Russia) in 1999. The second applicant, Mr   Roman Yuryevich Panasenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Millerovo. They are represented before the Court by Mr R.   Maranov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant carried out its activities in the town of Millerovo. The second applicant was its Presbyter at the relevant time. In April 2008 they put in place Budushcheye , a Christian club for children, and Christian meetings for children on Saturdays and Sundays. On 19 March 2010 a local prosecutor’s office instituted an inquiry into the applicants’ activities. The authorities considered that the above amounted to an education activity and required a State licence. In the absence of such a licence, the authorities instituted proceedings against the applicants under Article 19.20 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). By judgments of 18 June 2010 peace justice convicted the applicants as charged. The first and the second applicants were sentenced to fines of 10,000 and 1,000 Russian roubles respectively. [1] On 23 August 2010 the Millerovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region upheld the judgments. The applicants paid the fines and, apparently, ceased their above ‑ mentioned teaching activities for children. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Constitution of the Russian Federation Article 28 guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to profess, either alone or in community with others, any religion or to profess no religion at all, to freely choose, have and share religious and other beliefs and manifest them in practice. 2.     Religions Act (no. 125-FZ of 26 September 1997) The relevant provisions of the Religions Act read as follows: “ Section 5: Religious education “1. Everyone has the right to receive religious education as a matter of choice, individually or in community with others. ... 3. Religious organisations may establish educational institutions in accordance with their statutes and the legislation of the Russian Federation.” Section 14: Suspension of the functioning of a religious association, dissolution of a religious association and banning of the activities of a religious association in the event they [sic] committed a breach of law “1. Religious organisations may be dissolved: — by a decision of their founders ... — by a judicial decision in the event of repeated or gross violations of the provisions of the Russian Constitution, of this federal act or of other federal acts ... 2. The grounds for dissolving a religious organisation and banning the activities of a religious organisation or a religious group by judicial decision are: — breach of public security and public order; — actions aimed at engaging in extremist activities; — coercion into destroying the family unit; — infringement of the personality, rights and freedoms of citizens; — infliction of harm, established in accordance with the law, on the morals or health of citizens, including by means of narcotic or psychoactive substances, hypnosis, or committing depraved and other disorderly acts in connection with religious activities; — encouragement of suicide or the refusal on religious grounds of medical assistance to persons in life- or health-threatening conditions; — hindrance to receiving compulsory education; — coercion of members and followers of a religious association and other persons into alienating their property for the benefit of the religious association; — hindering a citizen from leaving a religious association by threatening harm to life, health, or property, if the threat can actually be carried out, or by application of force or commission of other disorderly acts; — inciting citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties established by law or to commit other disorderly acts. 3. Prosecutor’s offices of the Russian Federation, the federal registration authority and its regional divisions and local self-government authorities may file an application with a court to have a religious organisation dissolved or the activities of a religious organisation or religious group banned.” Section 19: Institutions of professional religious education “1. Religious organisations, in accordance with their statutes, have the exclusive right to found institutions of professional religious education (spiritual educational institutions) for the training of clergymen and religious staff. 2. Institutions of professional religious education shall be registered as religious organisations and shall obtain a State licence to conduct educational activities.” 3.     Education Act (no. 3266-I of 10 July 1992) The preamble to the Act defines education as “the purposeful process of upbringing and learning in the interests of the individual, society and the State, accompanied by a confirmation of achievement of the educational levels established by the State”. Section 15 sets out the general requirements on the organisation of the educational process. It provides, in paragraph 4, that the completion of the mandatory curriculum of, in particular, all types of vocational training must be accompanied by a mandatory final evaluation of students. Sections 17 and 33 § 6 establish that educational institutions acquire the right to dispense education upon receipt of authorisation (a licence). 4.     Prosecutors Act (Federal Law no. 2202-1 of 17 January 1992) Prosecutors oversee compliance with the Russian Constitution and laws by State and municipal authorities and their officials, as well as by the governing bodies and directors of commercial and non-commercial associations (section 21 § 1). Prosecutors have the right to institute administrative or other proceedings and to warn potential offenders that a breach of law is unacceptable (section   22 § 2). Prosecutors may, in particular, issue reports pertaining to the remedying of the violations uncovered (section 22 § 3). 5.     Case-law of Russian courts On 20 February 2002 the Federal Commercial Court of the Volga-Vyatka Circuit upheld at final instance a judgment of the Commercial Court of the Yaroslavl Region dated 20 December 2001, which rejected a prosecutor’s application for a judicial order requiring the Islamic Religious Organisations of Yaroslavl Muslims to discontinue the unlicensed education of followers at a Sunday school (madrasa). The Federal Court pointed out that the education provided at the madrasa was not accompanied by a final evaluation and certification and therefore fell outside the scope of the Education Act. On 10 June 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation heard an appeal against the Smolensk Regional Court’s judgment by which it granted the prosecutor’s application to have the Smolensk United Methodist Church dissolved on account of the fact that it taught the Bible to children, aged four to fourteen, at a Sunday school without a licence and in breach of sanitary requirements. The Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment, finding as follows: “It follows from the case materials that the teaching of religion to children at the Sunday school ... was not accompanied by a final evaluation and certification, this form of education falls outside the scope of the notion of ‘education’ which is subject to licensing within the meaning of the Education Act. Accordingly, the [Regional] court did not have grounds to conclude that the teaching of religion to children at the Sunday school amounted to education and the [Supreme] court considers this finding erroneous. Taking into account that ... the Smolensk United Methodist Church operates in accordance with its Statute, that its Sunday school for children is not a professional religious institution for the training of clergy which is subject to licensing ... but is destined to teach religion and provide a religious upbringing to the [children of the] followers of the United Methodist Church, the identified breaches of sanitary requirements ... cannot be relied upon as a ground for dissolving the religious organisation.” COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the administrative offence proceedings against them disproportionately restricted their freedom protected by Article   9 of the Convention, namely, the freedom to manifest their religion/belief in teaching. The applicants argue that their activities did not fall within the scope of “educational activities”, which required a State licence. The applicants also allege under Article 14 of the Convention that they were treated differently as compared to numerous Orthodox organisations, which were permitted to carry out similar activities (for instance, so-called “Sunday schools”) without a State licence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     (a)     Did the applicants fail to exhaust domestic remedies by omitting to seek supervisory review under the CAO before the regional court and the Supreme Court of Russia?   (b)     Was there a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in the present case (see Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia , no. 33203/08, §§ 52-63, 12 June 2014)? In particular: -     Was the interference in the present case lawful? Did the relevant provisions of domestic law meet the quality-of-law standard? -     What legitimate aim, in terms of Article 9 of the Convention, was pursued by the interference in the present case? -     When dealing with the administrative offence charges against the applicants, did the national courts carry out a proportionality analysis, weighing the applicants’ Article 9 freedom vis-à-vis a legitimate public interest (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia , no. 39417/07, § 95, 27   September 2011, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04 , § 141, 30 May 2013)? Were the applicants given advance notice that their activities were in breach of the law? After breaches had been uncovered, were the applicants afforded time or opportunity to remedy the alleged irregularities?   2.     (a)     Did the applicants have a remedy to be exhausted for their complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with its Article   9? Did they exhaust it? If there was no remedy, did they comply with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? (b)     Was there a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with its Article 9?   [1] EUR 260 and 26 respectively (per Bank of Russia rate on the relevant date)