CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   Communicated on 6 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61214/08 TSENTR PROSVETITELNYKH I ISSLEDOVATELSKIKH PROGRAMM against Russia lodged on 13 November 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Tsentr Prosvetitelnykh i Issledovatelskikh Programm (“Centre for Enlightening and Research Programmes”), a non-profit public association, was registered in 2002 in St Petersburg. It is represented before the Court by Mr D.G. Bartenev, a lawyer practising in St   Petersburg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 28 June 2002 the applicant was registered as a legal person in the form of a regional public association ( региональная общественная организация ). According to its founding charter, its aims were to disseminate information about human rights and to promote legal awareness through charitable work, legal assistance, public events, publications, research and other activities. From 2 July 2004 until 1 July 2007 the applicant conducted a number of seminars on selected topics relating to international law, human rights, project management and the regulation of NGO activities. From 2 until 31 July 2007 the Federal State Registry Service conducted an inspection of the applicant’s activities and determined that it had been using funds for improper purposes. On this basis it lodged an application with the St   Petersburg City Court for the applicant’s liquidation. On 14 February 2008 the St   Petersburg City Court ordered the applicant’s liquidation on the following grounds. Firstly, it found that the applicant had carried out some activities outside St   Petersburg, contrary to its status as a regional public association. In particular, some of its seminars had taken place in neighbouring regions. Secondly, the applicant had been conducting educational activities without holding the relevant licence. In particular, its seminars had involved training and role-playing games designed to provide the participants with theoretical knowledge and practical skills that could be applicable to professional activities; moreover, it had issued questionnaires, feedback forms and certificates of attendance. Such seminars had been found to constitute “educational activities” ( образовательная деятельность ) which were subject to licencing. On 20 May 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the first-instance judgment. On 13 January 2009 the same court refused the applicant’s request for supervisory review. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that its liquidation had not been in accordance with law had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary under Article   10   § 2 of the Convention in respect of a legitimate aim set out in this provision?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary under Article 11 § 2 of the Convention in respect of a legitimate aim set out in this provision?