CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mars 2017

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s29003603 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:56.87pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC8BC7EAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt }   Communicated on 22 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9988/13 ECODEFENCE and others against Russia and 48 other applications (see Appendix)   STATEMENT OF FACTS FACTS The facts of individual applications are set out in Appendix. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Foreign Agents Act On 20   July 2012 the Russian Parliament adopted a series of amendments to the laws on non-governmental organisations, collectively known as the “Foreign Agents Act”. The Act introduced the concept of a “foreign agent” into section 2 of the Law on Non-Commercial Organisations (hereinafter referred to as “the NCOs Act”). It was defined as follows: “... 6. ... a Russian non-commercial organisation which receives funds and other property from foreign States, their governmental bodies, international and foreign organisations, foreign nationals, stateless persons or persons authorised by [any of the above], or Russian legal entities receiving funds and other property from the above-mentioned sources (except for joint-stock companies with State involvement and their subsidiaries) (hereinafter referred to as ‘foreign sources’), and which engages in political activity, including political activity in the interests of foreign providers of funds, in the territory of the Russian Federation.” Section 2 of the NCOs Act defines the concept of “political activity”: “A non-commercial organisation, except for a political party, is considered to carry out political activity if, regardless of its statutory goals and purposes, it participates (including financially) in the organisation and implementation of political actions in order to influence State authorities’ decision-making affecting State policy and public opinion. Activities in the following fields shall be excluded from the scope of ‘political activity’: science, culture, the arts, health care, the prevention of diseases and the protection of health, social security, the protection of motherhood and childhood, social support of disabled persons, promotion of a healthy lifestyle, physical well ‑ being and sports, the protection of flora and fauna, charitable activities, and assistance of charities and voluntary organisations.” Section 32 of the NCOs Act, as amended on 20 July 2012, requires all organisations exercising the functions of a “foreign agent” to seek registration with the Ministry of Justice: “7. ... A non-commercial organisation intending to exercise the functions of a foreign agent shall file with a competent body [the Ministry of Justice] an application for its inclusion in the register of non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent...” Section 29 of the Public Associations Act (Federal Law no. 82-FZ of 19   May 1995) contains the same requirement on a non-governmental organisation qualifying as a foreign agent to register with a competent body. The Foreign Agents Act added a new subsection to section 32 of the NCOs Act. The new provisions contained specific grounds for unscheduled inspections of NCOs (non-commercial organisations) exercising the functions of a foreign agent (section   32(4.6)). As to routine inspections, section 32, as amended by the Foreign Agents Act, provides as follows: “4.5. Routine inspections of a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent shall be carried out once a year.” According to section 24 of the NCOs Act, as amended by the Foreign Agents Act, organisations registered as foreign agents are required to label their publications accordingly: “1. ... Material issued by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent or distributed by it, in particular through the mass media or with the use of the Internet, shall bear an indication that such material has been issued or distributed by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent.” The Foreign Agents Act also introduced new accounting requirements. Financial reports of non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent are subject to compulsory audits. They are required to keep separate records of income or expenses obtained from foreign sources and income or expenses obtained from other sources (section 32(1) of the NCOs Act). Like all other NCOs, they submit to the Ministry of Justice reports on their activities, members of management bodies, expenditures and use of property. They must also comply with stricter accounting requirements, as provided for in section 32(3) and (3.2): “3. ... non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent shall submit an audit statement together with the above-mentioned documents. Moreover, the documents submitted by non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent shall contain information on the spending of funds and the use of other property received from foreign sources, and on their actual expenditure and use of property ... Non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent shall submit to a competent body [the Ministry of Justice] a report on their activities and members of management bodies every six months; every three months they shall submit documents containing information on the spending of funds and the use of other property, including funds and property received from foreign sources, and an audit statement shall be submitted every year. 3.2. ... once a year, non-commercial organisations exercising the functions of a foreign agent shall publish on the Internet a report about their activities containing the same information as that submitted to a competent body [the Ministry of Justice] or its local department; and every six months the organisations will provide such a report for publication in the mass media.” The Foreign Agents Act also made the following acts criminal offences: creation of a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent which violates human rights, and deliberate non-compliance with the legislation on foreign agents. A subsequent law of 12 November 2012 introduced sanctions for violation of the legal provisions on foreign agents into the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The new Article 19.7.5-2 defines sanctions for failure to provide information to the State authorities: “Failure by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent to provide or to provide in a timely manner a State body (or official) with the data (or information) required by law and necessary to these State bodies (or officials) for the accomplishment of their lawful objectives, or failure to provide complete or correct data (or information) to a State body (or official), if these actions (or inaction) do not amount to a criminal offence – shall be punishable by a reprimand or an administrative fine of 10,000 to 30,000 roubles for officials, and a fine of 100,000 to 300,000 roubles for legal entities.” New provisions also concern sanctions for failure to register as a foreign agent and for violation of the duty to label publications as originating from a foreign agent (Article   19.34): “1. Failure by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent to register as a foreign agent – shall be punishable by an administrative fine of 100,000 roubles to 300,000 roubles for officials, and a fine of 300,000 roubles to 500,000 roubles for legal entities. 2. The publishing of material by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent or the distribution of such material through the mass media or the Internet without indication that it has been published or distributed by a non-commercial organisation exercising the functions of a foreign agent – shall be punishable by an administrative fine of 100,000 roubles to 300,000 roubles for officials, and a fine of 300,000 roubles to 500,000 roubles for legal entities.” In Ruling no. 10-P of 8   April 2014 the Constitutional Court held that Article 19.34 § 1 of the CAO did not fully comply with the Russian Constitution (see below). On 4   June 2014 the Federal Parliament introduced an amendment concerning the Ministry of Justice’s power to put a non-governmental organisation (NGO) on the list of foreign agents on its own initiative. The Law of 8 March 2015 added a procedure for removing an organisation from the list of foreign agents. On 3   November 2015, in respect of administrative offences relating to the foreign agents legislation, a statutory limitation period for the relevant prosecuting organisation was extended from three months to one year. On 2   June 2016 the definition of a “foreign agent” was updated to read as follows: “A non-commercial organisation, except for a political party, is considered to carry out a political activity in Russian territory if, regardless of its statutory goals and purposes, it engages in activities in the field of statehood, the protection of the Russian constitutional system, federalism, the protection of the Russian Federation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, public security, national defence, external policy, the Russian Federation’s social, economic and national development, development of the political system, State and local authority activities, or human rights, for the purpose of influencing State policy, State and local authority structure, or their decisions and actions. The above activity shall be carried out in the following ways: organising and holding public events such as meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets, or any combination of them, and organising and holding public debates, discussions, or speeches; attempting to get certain results from elections, holding a referendum, acting as an election or referendum observer, establishing election or referendum commissions, engaging in political party activities; submitting public petitions to State and local authorities and officials, and carrying out other actions affecting [such public authorities and officials], including actions encouraging the adoption, amendment or repeal of laws or other legal acts; disseminating, including via information technology, views on State authorities’ decisions and policy; shaping opinion on social and political issues by, amongst other things, carrying out public opinion polls and publishing the results, or conducting other sociological research; involving citizens, including minors, in the above activities; financing the above activities. The activities in the following fields shall be excluded from the scope of ‘political activity’: science, culture, the arts, health care, disease prevention and protection of health, social security, protection of motherhood and childhood, social support of disabled persons, promotion of a healthy lifestyle, physical well-being and sports, protection of flora and fauna, charitable activities.” B.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court On 8   April 2014 the Constitutional Court issued Ruling no. 10-P, upholding the provisions of the Foreign Agents Act as being compatible with the Constitution, and provided an interpretation of the term “foreign agent”. Firstly, the Constitutional Court set out which circumstances should be considered when determining whether an organisation was financed from abroad: “... There is no risk of arbitrary interpretation and application of the provisions on foreign funding, as it makes no difference how long, in what amount or in what form the foreign funds have been provided. However, it is important to bear in mind that relevant funds and other property should be not only transferred (remitted) to the non ‑ commercial organisation, but also received by it; if it refuses to receive them and returns them to the foreign source, in particular before starting political activity, the organisation is not obliged to file an application for registration as a foreign agent ...” The Constitutional Court described what actions could be considered political activity: “The forms of political activity can be diverse. In addition to meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets, political actions may include: elections and referendum campaigns; public appeals to State bodies; dissemination of positions regarding decisions made and policy pursued by State bodies, including dissemination via information technology; and other activities which cannot be exhaustively listed. When classifying as political actions some activities organised and carried out with the participation of non-commercial organisations ... it is important to determine how they may affect (either directly or by shaping public opinion) the decision-making process of State bodies and State policy, as well as to determine whether they will trigger a public reaction and attract the attention of State bodies or civil society. The activities of a non-commercial organisation in such fields as science, culture, the arts, public health, preventive care and health care, social support and protection, protection of motherhood and childhood, social support of disabled persons, promotion of a healthy lifestyle, physical exercises and sports, protection of flora and fauna, charitable activities, and assistance of charities and voluntary organisations shall not be considered political activity ... even if the aim of these activities is to influence the decision-making process of State bodies and State policy, provided that this aim stays within the limits of the relevant field...” When defining whether an organisation intends to carry out political activities, it is necessary to take into account the following elements:   “... The intention to participate in political activity in the territory of the Russian Federation may be confirmed by constitutional, programme and other official documents of a non-commercial organisation, public statements of its directors (officials) containing an appeal to adopt, change or annul some decisions by State bodies, notices of assembly, meetings, demonstrations, marches or picketing sent by a non-commercial organisation to a regional executive or municipal body, the preparation and presentation of legislative initiatives, and other public activities objectively demonstrating that the non-commercial organisation intends to arrange and hold political events in order to influence the decision-making procedure and policy of State authorities.” The Constitutional Court further held that the provisions of the CAO were in line with the Constitution, except for Article 19.34 of the CAO establishing the minimum amounts of fines, in so far as, in all cases, it did not allow the nature of the offence, the degree of guilt of the person held responsible, his or her property and financial status, and other circumstances important for the individualisation of punishment to be properly considered. The Constitutional Court concluded as follows: “4.2. ... It becomes extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to ensure, as the Constitution requires, an individual approach to imposing an administrative fine with the minimum of 100,000 roubles for officials and 300,000 roubles for legal entities, especially because no alternative is provided for. ... Thus, the provision ... that establishes the minimum amount of the administrative fines ... does not conform to the Constitution of the Russian Federation... ... The federal legislator should ... make necessary changes as a result of this ruling ... Pending such changes ..., the amount of the administrative fine imposed on officials and legal entities for committing administrative offences as set out in Article 19.34   §   1 may be reduced by the court below the lower limit established by the sanction of this provision, ... in cases where the imposition of an administrative fine within the limits stipulated by the sanction does not meet the purposes of administrative liability and excessively restricts the property rights of the person concerned.” EXPERT OPINIONS A.     Report by the Human Rights Resource Centre In March 2015 the Human Rights Resource Centre, a Russian NGO, released the report “Foreign Agents: Mythical Enemies and Russian Society’s Real Losses”, which analysed cases of forcible inclusion on the list of foreign agents. The report also contains an analysis of seventy grounds for classifying an NGO’s activities as political. The researchers came to the conclusion that the legislation on foreign agents had made the situation of NGOs worse. Moreover, the domestic courts applied the Foreign Agents Act on the basis of a wide interpretation of its provisions: “The courts provide a very wide interpretation of the term ‘political activity’ in their decisions. They include in this term activities useful to society, the dissemination of information and the protection of human rights... The effective legislation does not provide for a clear definition of the term ‘political activity’. This may result in a prejudicial attitude towards NGOs which have an active position in society and which implement projects helping to deal with social problems. This may also result in pressure being put on public leaders, impeding the leaders’ activities and the daily work of NGOs.” According to the report, when classifying an action as political activity, the Ministry of Justice, prosecutor’s offices and courts used a standardised approach. The researchers identified seventy grounds for identifying political activity, including, inter alia : organising public events, conferences, and seminars; publishing information on human rights; posting interviews with an NGO’s director on the Internet; collecting signatures; releasing a film; distributing flyers; and protecting the environment. The books present in an NGO’s office could also constitute such grounds. In many cases, the activities did not concern any political issues. In some cases, the grounds were very vague. In particular, between 2 and 4   August 2010 a representative of the Youth Centre for Consulting and Training, a non ‑ commercial human rights organisation, participated in the Russia ‑ Georgia: Vladikavkaz-Tbilisi bike ride. This event was classified as political activity. The researchers concluded that any actions of NGOs could be identified as political activity. The indication in the Foreign Agents Act that NGOs’ activities in science, the protection of flora and fauna and other fields could not be considered as political activity had not changed the situation. B.     Opinion by the Amnesty International In its new report “Agents of the People: Four Years of ‘Foreign Agents’ Law in Russia”, November 2016, Amnesty International highlighted the negative impact of the Foreign Agents Act on independent Russian NGOs. Amnesty International noted that the Russian authorities implemented the Foreign Agents Act in such a way that almost any NGO which received foreign funds was likely to be registered as a foreign agent, irrespective of its activities. The Foreign Agents Act had been used to undermine and discredit effective and active NGOs. It had contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of suspicion and intolerance. Many organisations which had made a significant contribution to promotion of human rights, civil society and wellbeing had been forced to close down. NGOs faced a difficult choice: to accept funds from abroad and be labelled “foreign agents” or refuse foreign funding and rely exclusively on Russian sources, including Presidential grants or grants from the local authorities. However the NGOs funded by the government might become less independent and more prone to self-censorship. Amnesty International recommended suspending and then repealing the Foreign Agents Act; publicly acknowledging the importance of NGOs in civil society; protecting NGOs and human rights defenders against harassment and attacks. C.     Opinions of the Venice Commission and the Commissioner for Human Rights The Foreign Agents Act has been analysed by international organisations. In particular, on 27   June 2014 the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) issued Opinion no.   716 ‑ 717/2013. The Commission made the following observations: “132. ... The use of the term ‘foreign agent’ is highly controversial. By bringing back the rhetoric used during the communist period, this term stigmatises the NCOs to which it is applied, tarnishing their reputation and seriously hampering their activities. The Venice Commission therefore recommends that the term be abandoned. 133. The Venice Commission further considers that the legitimate aim of ensuring transparency of NCOs receiving funding from abroad cannot justify measures which hamper the activities of NCOs operating in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It therefore recommends reconsidering the creation of a special regime with autonomous registration, special register and a host of additional legal obligations. 134. If this specific legal regime is maintained, the power of the authorities to proceed with the registration of a NCO as ‘foreign agent’ (or other term) without that NCO’s consent should be removed... 135. Pursuant to the law under examination, the legal status of a “foreign agent” presupposes not only that a NCO receives foreign funding but also that it participates in ‘political activities’. This expression is however quite broad and vague and the practice of its interpretation by public authorities has been so far rather disparate, adding to the uncertainties surrounding the meaning of the term. The Venice Commission therefore calls upon the Russian authorities to work towards a clear definition of ‘political activities’... 136. In addition to its text, the practical implementation of the Law on Non ‑ Commercial Organizations also gives rise to concerns. Reports indicate that NCOs have been subject to numerous extraordinary inspections, with the legal ground of these inspections remaining unclear and the extent of documents required during them differing quite substantively.” On 15   July 2013 the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe issued an Opinion on the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Non-Commercial Organisations in light of Council of Europe Standards. The Commissioner reiterated some observations of the Venice Commission as to the terms “foreign agent” and the definition of political activity, and stated that the legislation regulating the activities of NGOs in Russia should be revised, with the aim of establishing a clear, coherent and consistent framework in line with applicable international standards. Reporting and accounting requirements should be the same for all NGOs, regardless of the sources of their income. They should be transparent and coherent and not interfere with NGOs’ ongoing daily work. There should be no more than one governmental institution dealing with issues such as registering, reporting, regulating and overseeing the work of the NGOs. Other agencies should exercise their supervisory powers only in cases where there were reasonable and objective grounds to believe that the organisation in question had violated its legal obligations. On 9   July 2015 the above document was updated and a new opinion was issued entitled Legislation and Practice in the Russian Federation on Non ‑ Commercial Organisations in light of Council of Europe Standards: an Update. The Commissioner analysed the domestic case-law and found that as of 29 June 2015 there had been at least 189 cases brought before first ‑ instance and appellate domestic courts in respect of the application of the legislation on foreign agents. Of those, at least twenty-eight judicial decisions had been delivered in favour of the NGOs concerned, while at least 121 judicial decisions had found that the law had been correctly applied against the NGOs. In at least fifty-five of the cases, the judicial decisions had already entered into force. As a result of the application of the legislation on foreign agents, at least twenty NGOs in the country had ceased their activity either in full (for example, by terminating their operations voluntarily or suspending their activity) or in part (for example, by closing specific projects) (see the Opinion of 9 July 2015 on Legislation and Practice in the Russian Federation on Non-Commercial Organisations in light of Council of Europe Standards: an Update, pp. 4-5). The Commissioner further noted that the recommendations in his previous Opinion had not been implemented, and made the following recommendations: “The Commissioner calls on the Russian authorities to revise the legislation on non ‑ commercial organisations in order to establish a clear, coherent and consistent framework in line with applicable European and international standards ... In particular, the legislative revision should entail: the use of clear definitions in the legislation allowing to foresee the legal consequences of its implementation; avoiding the use of stigmatising language such as ‘foreign agent’ towards NCOs; non-discriminatory legal provisions, including in the field of reporting and sanctioning of NCOs, irrespective of the sources of their funding; application of the ‘pressing social need’ criteria for any State interference with the freedoms of association and expression, including the imposition of sanctions; limiting State interference in NCO activities to setting up clear and non-biased standards of transparency and reporting; application of sanctions only as measures of the last resort in full compliance with the principle of proportionality; revocation of provisions establishing criminal prosecution of NCO staff in cases which normally fall under administrative procedures.” COMPLAINTS Joint complaints The applicants in all cases complain under Articles 10 and 11 regarding the quality of the Foreign Agents Act, their persecution for failing to register as foreign agents, and excessive State control. Individual complaints The applicants in cases nos. 9988/13, 48431/14, 4798/15, 7098/15, 13474/15, 14070/15, 24773/15, 25934/15, 27654/15, 32412/15, 32423/15, 37043/15, 42351/15, 44403/15, 47695/15, 49258/15, 52257/15, 55272/15, 55280/15, 57310/15, 57931/15, 60400/15, 1786/16, 3085/16, 5941/16, 15098/16, 19719/16, 26169/16, 26303/16, 33734/16, 35816/16, 48049/16, 59985/16, 61699/16, 61732/16, 61989/16, 69826/16, 76854/16 and 9076/17 complain under Articles 10, 11 and 14 that they are subjected to discrimination and to restrictions and excessive reporting obligations while other NGOs are exempt from such duties. The applicants in cases nos. 9988/13, 15098/16 and 26303/16 complain under Articles 10, 11 and 18 that their freedom of expression and association was restricted for purposes other than those prescribed by the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of all the applicants, was there a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Do the provisions of the Foreign Agents Act meet the “quality of law” requirements contained in Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular: (i)     Is the definition of the term “foreign agent” sufficiently clear and foreseeable? (ii)     Are the provisions on foreign financing foreseeable? Does Russian law establish any specific amount, period or form of foreign financing in order for an entity to be recognised a foreign agent? (iii)     Is the definition of “political activity” sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application? (iv)     Are the labelling requirements formulated with sufficient clarity? Does the national law prescribe with sufficient clarity what material requires labelling or from where the material should originate? (v)     Is the amount of the fine for failure to register as a foreign agent sufficiently foreseeable? (b)     Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Were the reasons for the interference “relevant” and “sufficient”? In particular: (i)     Were the negative connotations of the term “foreign agents” considered when choosing a name for organisations receiving foreign funding? Was such branding “necessary in a democratic society”? (ii)     Was the restriction of applicants’ access to foreign funding “necessary in a democratic society”? What were the consequences of such restriction in terms of the availability of alternative funding? The Government are requested to illustrate their response with specific examples. (iii)     Did registration as a foreign agent have an impact on the applicants’ ability to freely express their ideas and carry out political activity? Was the suppression of the applicant organisations’ free debate and political activities necessary in a democratic society? (iv)     Are the additional reporting requirements applicable to the applicant organisations – such as labelling publications, keeping separate records of income or expenses obtained from foreign sources, submitting reports on activities and the composition of their management bodies, and auditing – proportionate to the aim pursued, and do they impose an excessive burden on the applicants? (v)     Are the sanctions for violation of the Foreign Agents Act proportionate to the gravity of the imputed offences? Did the domestic courts weigh the amount of a fine against the financial standing of an applicant organisation and the potential impact of the fine on the organisation’s sustainability?   2.     As regards the applicants who rely on Article 14, have they suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on account of their being labelled as foreign agents, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant organisations, ostensibly pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, applied for purposes other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?       APPENDIX – FACTS OF INDIVIDUAL CASES   Public Initiatives Support Centre v. Russia (application no. 14338/14, lodged on 12.02.2014)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Некоммерческая организация Фонд "Костромской центр поддержки общественных инициатив" Director of the applicant organisation (the second applicant): Aleksandr Pavlovich Zamaryanov Representative before the Court: D. Gaynutdinov Place of registration: Kostroma Mission of the applicant organisation: Supporting charitable causes and various initiatives in the non-profit sector. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 05.06.2014 Date deleted from the register: 19.06.2015 Reason for deletion: Stopped being a foreign agent Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Kostroma Prosecutor’s Office, April 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Organising a round table discussion on relations between the United States and Russia; observing the elections in March 2013, and making information on these and other events available to the public. Foreign funder(s): United States Department of State, United States Embassy and International Republican Institute Judicial decisions: (1) 29 May 2013, Justice of the Peace of the First Court Circuit of Kostroma, fines for failure to register as a foreign agent; (2) 8 April 2014, Constitutional Court. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: None Social Policy and Gender Studies Centre v. Russia (application no. 59787/14, lodged on 15.08.2014)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Автономная некоммерческая научно-исследовательская организация "Центр социальной политики и гендерных исследований" Representative before the Court: D. Bartenev Place of registration: Saratov Mission of the applicant organisation: Research in the field of social and gender policy. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 05.06.2014 Date deleted from the register: 22.05.2015 Reason for deletion: Liquidated Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Prosecutor’s Office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Saratov, September 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Organising an event to discuss social policy in the post-Soviet era and posting on a website a letter from Dutch NGOs and other publications in support of the Centre; informing the public about the Centre’s aims, including application of the principle of reflective critique to social policy research. Foreign funder(s): MacArthur Foundation, OSIAF Judicial decisions: 27 November 2013, Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov, allowing the prosecutor’s claim for forced registration. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: None. The courts fully endorsed the findings of the inspection Regional Golos v. Russia (application no. 9988/13, lodged on 06.02.2013)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Региональная общественная организация в защиту демократических прав и свобод "ГОЛОС" Representative before the Court: P. Leach Place of registration: Moscow Mission of the applicant organisation: Protection of voters’ rights and free elections; interaction between individuals and local authorities. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 05.06.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, April 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Contributing to discussions on municipal governance; drafting amendments to Acts on constitutional rights and the protection of public interests; providing information on how to protect constitutional rights and public interests; interacting with authorities; pursuing a political agenda by influencing the opinion of persons professionally engaged or interested in politics, including State agents and journalists, with regard to State policy in Russia; promoting a draft elections code; interviews with Ms Shibanova, Chair of the Board of the Regional Golos Organisation, in which she expressed her opinion on new election laws. Foreign funder(s): NED, European Commission and Norwegian Helsinki Committee Judicial decisions: (1) 10 July 2013, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow held that the prosecutor’s actions had been lawful; (2) 6 June 2013, Justice of the Peace of the Basmanny District of Moscow, fine for failure to register as a foreign agent. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: The court found that the notion of political activity in the Foreign Agents Act did not lend itself to precise definition, and might include various activities and events (publishing information in the mass media, posting information on the Internet, public discussions and other public events, collecting signatures, and so on), the most important criterion for classifying an action as political activity being its impact on State authorities’ decisions, legislation and public opinion. Other complaints: Discrimination (Article 14); limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18) Golos Association v. Russia (application no. 9988/13, lodged on 06.02.2013)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Ассоциация некоммерческих организаций "В защиту прав избирателей "ГОЛОС" Director of the applicant organisation (the second applicant): Liliya Vasilyevna Shibanova Representative before the Court: P. Leach Place of registration: Moscow Mission of the applicant organisation: Monitoring elections and promoting protection of voters’ rights. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 05.06.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: (1) Ministry of Justice, April 2013; (2) Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, April 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Contribution to the adoption of a new elections code; an interview in which the Director of the Golos Association stated her intention to change the situation with regard to elections; the participation of the Director of the Golos Association in various debates on the elections code; organisation of public events to promote a draft elections code; contribution to debates on this code; posting the code on its website. Foreign funder(s): Norwegian Helsinki Committee Judicial decisions: (1) 29 April 2013, Justice of the Peace of the Presneniskiy District, fine for failure to register as a foreign agent; (2) 24 June 2014, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow held that the prosecutor’s actions had been justified; (3) 29 April 2013, Justice of the Peace of the Presneniskiy District fined Ms Shibanova for failure to register the Golos Association as a foreign agent; (4) 8 April 2014, Constitutional Court. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: (1) The court established that the Golos Association had returned the Andrei Sakharov Freedom Award, but this had no legal effect, as foreign financing was considered completed when funds were credited to the association’s account (2) The appeal court held that, by choosing the name “‘Golos’ Association for the Protection of Voting Rights”, preparing and distributing information on amendments to laws and views on State authorities’ decisions and policy, the Golos Association had engaged in political activity. Taking into account the way in which legislative initiatives had been described on the applicant’s website and the objectives listed in its statute, the court concluded that the applicant had attempted to encourage Parliament to adopt laws governing State elections and elections to municipal bodies, and to influence policy as well as gain public prominence and attract the attention of the State and civil society.. Other complaints: Discrimination (Article 14); limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18) Union "Women of Don" v. Russia (application no. 7098/15, lodged on 28.01.2015)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Региональная общественная правозащитная организация "Союз "Женщины Дона" Representative before the Court: K. Koroteyev Place of registration: Novocherkassk Mission of the applicant organisation: Protecting human rights; protecting civil, political, economic and social rights of women; promoting independency of women; engaging women in State government; promoting family values; promoting peace and good relations in society, fight against nationalism and chauvinism; supporting traditions; protecting the rights of the child and the youth; promoting market economy and entrepreneurship, including support of female entrepreneurs; broadening cooperation with women’s organisations. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 05.06.2014 Date deleted from the register: 29.02.2016 Reason for deletion: Stopped being a foreign agent Date and authority that carried out the inspection: (1) Prosecutor’s office of Novocherkassk, April 2014; (2) Rostov Region Justice Department, April-May 2014. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Promoting the police reform, suggesting amendments to the laws, including Criminal Code, organising round-table discussions and posting information on this subject on a website; organising a seminar on fight against repeated crimes in the Southern Federal District of Russia with representatives of the migration service and social service institutions, regional ombudsman, Russian and international experts; holding a seminar on human rights, rights of the child and juvenal justice; organising discussions on Nuremberg trials, situation of S. Magnitskiy, a Russian lawyer whose death in custody came to the attention of international community, communication in social networks, assisting the families at risk; widening the scope of activities in Russian regions; supporting public leaders; asking the Russian President to release M. Savva, the director of an NGO and a public leader in Krasnodar Region; promoting penitentiary system reform, visiting prisoners and asking them to support the applicant’s activities. Foreign funder(s): Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, European Union, Freedom House, MacArthur Foundation, OSIAF, USA Embassy, Heinrich Böll Foundation, OWEN Judicial decisions: (1) 14 May 2014, Novocherkassk Town Court, allowing the prosecutor’s claim for forced registration; (2) 11 July 2014, Justice of the Peace of the Novocherkasskiy Court District, fine for failure to register as a foreign agent; (3) 9 December 2014, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, rejecting the applicant’s claim regarding forced registration. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: None. The courts fully endorsed the findings of the inspections. Other complaints: Discrimination (Articles 10, 11 and 14) Agora Association v. Russia (application no. 24773/15, lodged on 18.05.2015)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Межрегиональная Ассоциация правозащитных общественных организаций "Правозащитная ассоциация" Representative before the Court: I. Khrunova Place of registration: Kazan Mission of the applicant organisation: Providing free legal assistance to entities and individuals. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 21.07.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: (1) Prosecutor’s Office of the Vakhitovskiy District of Kazan, March-June 2014; (2) Tatarstan Justice Department, October 2015. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Contributing to the development of Internet without restrictions (by clarifying how to apply the “Blacklist Law” on the censorship of Internet publications) and contributing to changing State Internet policy; monitoring freedom of expression on the Internet; publishing reports on human rights violations on the Internet and reports on social control in detention facilities; contributing to the protection of Internet activists, NGOs and the education of human rights lawyers; suggesting that Russian law-enforcement authorities be restructured; the participation of the applicant’s director in the work of the Permanent Commission for the Development of NGOs of the President’s Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, which pursued political goals. The Agora Association was also engaged in an anti-corruption review of laws. Foreign funder(s): British Embassy, NED and Internews Network Judicial decisions: (1) 30 September 2014, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan held that the prosecutor’s actions were lawful; (2) 11 November 2015 (three judgments) and 14 December 2015 (two judgments), Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, fines for failure to label publications; (3) 10 February 2016, Supreme Court of Tatarstan, liquidation at the Ministry of Justice’s request for failure to comply with the law, in particular, for violation of the labelling requirement. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: None. Other complaints: Violation of the labelling requirements (Article 10); liquidation (Article 11); discrimination (Articles 10, 11 and 14) Human Rights Centre "Memorial" v. Russia (application no. 9988/13, lodged on 06.02.2013)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Межрегиональная общественная организация Правозащитный Центр "Мемориал" Representative before the Court: P. Leach Place of registration: Moscow Mission of the applicant organisation: Working on various projects in the field of human rights, in particular, litigation at the European Court of Human Rights; monitoring violations in the North Caucasus and Central Asia, and breaches of criminal procedure; providing protection for victims of political persecution, legal assistance for migrants, and protection for minorities. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 21.07.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, March-April 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Organising events aimed at promoting human rights, the rule of law and democratic values; posting a database on politically motivated arrests in Russia on a website. Foreign funder(s): NED Judicial decisions: (1) 24 May 2013, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court held that the inspection had been justified (2) 23 May 2014, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow found that the prosecutor’s application to remedy the violations had been lawful (3) 11 March 2015, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held the Ministry of Justice’s decision to put the applicant on the list of foreign agents was lawful; (4) 7 September 2015, Justice of the Peace of the Tverskoy District of Moscow, fine for failure to label publications. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: (1) The court stated that the inspection had been justified as, according to its statutes, HRC Memorial had been financed from abroad and had pursued political goals, such as the dissemination of information on human rights violations and totalitarian States’ crimes (2)The court established that, in its publications, the applicant had given its opinion on State authorities’ decisions in order to trigger a reaction and draw attention to the fact that the State might prosecute individuals even for legitimate activities; and had qualified the State authorities’ decisions as politically motivated and disseminated the personal data of State officials. Other complaints: Violation of labelling requirement (Article 10); discrimination (Article 14); limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18) Ecodefence v. Russia (application no. 9988/13, lodged on 06.02.2013)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Калининградская региональная общественная организация "Экозащита!-Женсовет" Representative before the Court: P. Leach Place of registration: Kaliningrad Mission of the applicant organisation: Promoting awareness of environmental issues. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 21.07.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Kaliningrad Region Justice Department, June 2014. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Participating in protests against the construction of the Baltic Nuclear Power Station; promoting Russia’s accession to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, and the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context; and contributing to the development of education and initiatives in the environmental field. Foreign funder(s): Ecoinitiative, Heinrich Böll Foundation, Nordic Council of Ministers Judicial decisions: 8 September 2014, Justice of the Peace of the Moskovskiy District, fine for a failure to register as a foreign agent. Any additional findings in the court proceedings: None. The courts fully endorsed the findings of the inspection. Other complaints: Discrimination (Article 14); limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18) Public Verdict v. Russia (application no. 9988/13, lodged on 06.02.2013)   Full Russian name of the applicant organisation: Фонд содействия защите прав и свобод граждан "Общественный вердикт" Representative before the Court: P. Leach Place of registration: Moscow Mission of the applicant organisation: Providing assistance for victims of law-enforcement agencies’ abuses of power. Date included in the register (or other type of interference): 21.07.2014 Date and authority that carried out the inspection: Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, March-May 2013. Actions taken to constitute political activities: Making recommendations on the legislation relating to associations, meetings and demonstrations