CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s5FFF0A74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:6pt }   Communicated on 30 August 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 59470/11 Aydar Rustemovich SULTANOV and CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY NIZHNEKAMSK against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The first applicant is Mr Aydar Rustemovich Sultanov, a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhnekamsk, Tatarstan. He is one of the founders and a member of the second applicant, the Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk, a religious group without legal-entity status. 2.     The third applicant is Mr Vladimir Leonidovich Kuropyatnik, a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. At the material time Mr Kuropyatnik was the Deputy PR Director of the Management Centre of Dianetics and Scientology Dissemination Activities ( Центр управления деятельностью по распространению дианетики и саентологии ) (“the Dianetics and Scientology Centre”). 3.     The fourth and fifth applicants are the Church of Scientology of the city of Moscow (“the applicant church”) and the Church of Scientology International, USA. 4.     The sixth applicant is the Dianetics and Scientology Centre, a Russian non-governmental organisation contributing to the dissemination of Scientology doctrine. 5.     The seventh and eighth applicants are New Era Publishing Group, a Russian publishing house, and New Era Publications International, a Danish publishing house. 6.     The ninth to twelfth applicants are Mr Vladislav Sergeyevich Kochemarov, Ms Meruert Nazymbekovna Kozhanova, Ms Natalya Sergeyevna Lukashkina and Ms Olga Serafimovna Murashkintseva, who are Russian nationals, born in 1976, 1981, 1974 and 1957 respectively, and who live in Moscow and Tarusa, Kaluga Region. Ms Lukashkina is the chairwoman of the Board of the Dianetics and Scientology Centre. Mr   Kochemarov, Ms Kozhanova and Ms Murashkintseva are members of the Church of Scientology. 7.     The thirteenth applicant is the Church of Scientology St Petersburg (“the applicant group”), a religious group without legal-entity status. The fourteenth to nineteenth applicants are Ms Galina Petrovna Shurinova, Ms   Nadezhda Ivanovna Shchemeleva, Ms Anastasya Gennadyevna Terentyeva, Mr Ivan Vladimirovich Matsitskiy, Ms Yulia Anatolyevna Bryntseva and Ms Galina Georgievna Frolova who are Russian nationals, born in 1954, 1955, 1979, 1975, 1977 and 1955 respectively, and who live in St Petersburg and Murino, Leningrad Region. Ms Shurinova is the president of the applicant group. Ms Shchemeleva, Ms Terentyeva, Mr   Matsitskiy, Ms Bryntseva amd Ms Frolova are the members of the applicant group. 8.     All the applicants, except Mr Sultanov and the Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk, are represented before the Court by Mr D. Holiner, a lawyer practising in London. The Church of Scientology St Petersburg, Ms   Shurinova, Ms Shchemeleva, Ms Terentyeva, Mr Matsitskiy, Ms   Bryntseva and Ms Frolova are represented by Mr Holiner and Ms   Krylova, a lawyer practicing in Moscow. A.     The circumstances of the cases 9.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no. 59470/11, Sultanov and Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk v. Russia 10.     On 28   October 1998 Mr Sultanov and fellow believers resolved to found the Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk as a local religious group. 11.     On 23   December 1999 the applicant church applied to the State Registration Chamber of the Republic of Tatarstan for registration as a local religious organisation. The Registration Chamber refused to register the applicant church. Mr Sultanov unsuccessfully brought an action challenging this decision before a court. The Church of Scientology complained to the Court and the Court found that the refusal had violated Article   9 of the Convention, read in the light of Article   11 (see Kimlya and Others v.   Russia , nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, §§   72-102, 1   October 2009). 12.     After the Court’s judgment became final on 1   March 2010, Mr   Sultanov asked the domestic courts to re-open the proceedings in connection with the Court’s judgment. On 26   April 2010 the Nizhnekamsk Town Court allowed his application and remitted the matter for fresh examination. 13.     On 2   June 2010 the Nizhnekamsk Town Court held that the decision to refuse registration had been unlawful. 14.     On 15   July 2010 the Supreme Court of Republic of Tatarstan required the Justice Department to register the Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk as a religious organisation. 15.     However, on 16   March 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed, by way of supervisory review upon an application by the Ministry of Justice, the judgment of 2   June 2010 on the grounds that the decision to refuse registration had been issued by the Registration Chamber rather than the Justice Department. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department could not be required to register the church as a religious organisation and should carry out a fresh assessment of the registration documents. It seems that no action followed. 16.     On 19   July 2016 Mr Sultanov asked the Justice Department to proceed with the registration. He has not received any reply. 2.     Application no. 64403/11, Kuropyatnik v. Russia a)     Background information and Mr Kuropyatnik’s apprehension 17.     On 26   March 2010 the Surgut Town Court banned certain Scientology literature as extremist and the Ministry of Justice added those titles to the Federal List of Extremist Materials ( Федеральный список экстремистских материалов ). Some time later, the Ministry of Internal Affairs obtained information about Mr Kuropyatnik disseminating Scientology materials that had been pronounced extremist. 18.     On 7   October 2010 Mr Kuropyatnik’s name was added to the “Search-Highway” (“Розыск-Магистраль” ), a police database used to track the movement across Russia of specific individuals allegedly involved in extremist activities (“the Surveillance Database”). Whenever a person included in the Surveillance Database purchases a train or aeroplane ticket, the transport police are notified. 19.     In October 2010 Mr Kuropyatnik bought a return air ticket from Moscow to Khanty-Mansiysk. On 13   October 2010, on his way back to Moscow, he was stopped at Vnukovo airport and escorted to the local police station. 20.     From 9.40 a.m. until 10.45 a.m. a policeman conducted an identity check and questioned Mr Kuropyatnik about the purpose of his being in Moscow and his involvement in the activities of the Church of Scientology. After that Mr Kuropyatnik left the police station. b)     Judicial review of the apprehension 21.     Mr Kuropyatnik lodged a complaint with the Solntsevskiy District Court in Moscow, alleging that he had been unlawfully detained. 22.     On 2   March 2011 the Solntsevskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the complaint. It found that sections 8 and 11 of the Police Act and sections 2, 6 and 7 of the Operative-Search Activities Act gave the police powers to check documents and question citizens in certain cases. In the applicant’s case the identity checks and the questioning had been justified by the fact that his name had been registered in the Surveillance Database. Mr Kuropyatnik had not been arrested or subjected to any hardship and had voluntarily gone to the police station; hence his right to security and freedom of movement had not been violated. 23.     On 8   April 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision in a summary fashion. c)     Judicial review of the database registration 24.     Mr Kuropyatnik also challenged the decision to register his name in the Surveillance Database, alleging a breach of his rights in respect of his private life, his personal security and freedom of movement. 25.     On 16   September 2011 the Moscow City Court dismissed his claim, finding that his name had been deleted from the Surveillance Database in March 2011. It continued as follows: “The Interior Department acted in accordance with the Operative Search Act and its objectives – in particular, the fight against extremism – and had grounds for registering [Mr Kuropyatnik] in the Surveillance Database, taking into account the fact that [Mr Kuropyatnik] had been involved in the activities of the Church of Scientology in Moscow and had distributed literature listed in the Federal List of Extremist Materials.” 26.     On 7   December 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld this decision in a summary fashion. 3.     Applications nos. 37508/12 and 61695/13, Church of Scientology Moscow and Others v. Russia 27.     On 16   March 2010 the Shchelkovo prosecutor’s office of the Moscow Region searched the premises of the Dianetics and Scientology Centre and seized books and brochures authored by L.   Ron Hubbard, including PTS/SP Course Lectures, What is Scientology?, Scientology Ideal Organisations. Basic Hat for Advisory Executive Council , The Scientology Ideal Organisations: What is an Organisation Course , Executive Status One , and The Organisation Executive Course (Volume 0, Management Series, Volumes 1, 2, 3 ). 28.     On 22   July 2010 the prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings in respect of a charge of incitement of hatred and asked an expert panel to assess the seized books and brochures. The experts, Mr T. and Mr V., found that the aim of the publications had been to create an isolated social group ‑ the Church of Scientology – whose members strived to perform their functions perfectly, including that of fighting against “suppressive persons”. The experts described the ideas contained in the publications as extremist ideology aimed at changing the society that existed outside the Church of Scientology. They further stated that the authors used psychological methods to stir up conflicts between those who belonged to the Church of Scientology and the rest of society and to destroy opposing social groups, and also expressed a negative attitude towards those belonging to other social groups. In that way, the Dianetics and Scientology Centre publicly incited hatred, hostility and degrading treatment on account of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, religion and social status. 29.     Referring to the experts’ findings, the prosecutor concluded that the L.   Ron Hubbard’s ideology was inhuman, caused the fragmentation of society and inter-faith confrontation, was inconsistent with the way of thinking and lifestyle of the Russian people, and was dangerous for Russian society. The learning materials, publications and audio and video materials on Scientology authored by L. Ron Hubbard should be prohibited as they undermined Russian traditional spiritual values. 30.     The prosecutor requested the Shchelkovo Town Court to declare Mr   Hubbard’s publications extremist. On 29   June 2011 the Shchelkovo Town Court allowed the prosecutor’s request, basing its decision exclusively on the expert opinions prepared by Mr T. and Mr V. It rejected the expert opinions submitted by the Dianetics and Scientology Centre as inadmissible evidence because their experts had not been appointed by the State in accordance with the established procedure. 31.     The Town Court declared the Scientology materials to be extremist and ordered their confiscation: “The court has no reason to doubt that the materials by L. R. Hubbard ... are extremist as they incite, and justify, extremist activities – in particular, they promote religious and social intolerance and hatred, [and] superiority on the grounds of social origin and religion ... Furthermore, the author of these books advocates the elimination of social groups which do not belong to the Church of Scientology.” 32.     The Scientology churches, the Dianetics and Scientology Centre, certain book publishers and individual applicants lodged appeals against the decision of 29   June 2011. They alleged that the ban on Scientology literature was unlawful and violated their right to freedom of religion. They further alleged that the Town Court had failed to indicate specific passages that were allegedly extremist. 33.     By a decision of 12   December 2011, as upheld on 20   March 2012, the Shchelkovo Town Court rejected the applicant church’s appeal without considering the merits. It held that the decision of 29   June   2011 did not affect its interests and rights. Moreover, the church had the same legal counsel as the Dianetics and Scientology Centre. Thus, there was no reason to join it to the proceedings. 34 .     On 20   March 2012 the Moscow Regional Court held that the appeals submitted by the Church of Scientology International, the Dianetics and Scientology Centre, the book publishers and the individual applicants were admissible, examined the appeals on the merits and upheld the decision of 29   June 2011, reiterating verbatim the first-instance court’s reasoning. 4.     Application no. 16761/14, Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia a)     Re-registration of the applicant church 35.     On 25   January 1994 the applicant church was registered as a religious organisation. In 1997 the applicant church was required to amend its founding documents in order that it would conform with the newly enacted Religions Act. However, its repeated attempts to do so were met with the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to register it. In Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia , the Court found that the refusal had violated Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9 (no. 18147/02, §§ 71-98, 5   April 2007). 36.     After the Court’s judgment became final on 24   September 2007, the applicant church lodged further applications for re-registration. 37.     On 6   March, 23   August, 26   October and 12   December 2008 the Justice Department dismissed them on formal grounds. In particular, it found that: the applicant church had used an abbreviated version of the organisation’s name in the submitted documents; it had failed to stipulate in its articles of association that the members of the organisation should be Russian nationals or other adults legally resident in Russia; the articles of association did not contain provisions in respect of the establishment of the applicant church; the list of participants did not contain information on their respective nationalities, places of residence and dates of birth; the information regarding the basic tenets of the applicant church’s creed contained incorrect information about the governing body of the organisation; the applicant church had not submitted proof of consent for its use of the Scientology trademark or the articles of association of its foreign founder; the applicant church had not submitted to an inspection for the purpose of verifying the use of State or municipal symbols; the articles of association did not describe the nature of its activities; the applicant church had breached the procedure for the admission and exclusion of members; the general meeting of the organisation had approved a list of “participants” rather than a list of “members”; the articles of association did not stipulate the election procedure in respect of (and the powers of) executive officers and departmental staff, or the possibility for a member to terminate his or her membership without the consent of the top management; and the applicant church disseminated information on religious beliefs under a commercial contract. b)     A 2012 inspection 38.     In November 2012 the Moscow Justice Department carried out an inspection of the applicant church and found that it violated Russian laws. In particular: the organisation’s name in the State register was different from the name used in the articles of association; the name did not contain any reference to its corporate structure and creed; the applicant church had not been re-registered and its articles of association did not comply with the law; the applicant church used an emblem which had not been duly registered, and it undertook some of its activities outside Moscow; and some of the applicant church’s expenses did not relate to its aims. Moreover, according to the Justice Department, the applicant church had violated its articles of association by convening a “general meeting of participants” instead of a “general meeting of members” and by using an emblem which was not indicated in its articles of association. The Moscow Justice Department ordered the applicant church to remedy the violations found. 39.     On 1   March 2013 the applicant church lodged a complaint with the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. On 24   May   2013 the District Court dismissed the complaint; its reasoning reiterated the Justice Department’s findings verbatim. On 20   August 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision on appeal. c)     Further attempts to register amendments in 2014 40.     On 31 July and 5   September 2014 the applicant church re-submitted the amended documents for re-registration. On 31   July and 7   October 2014 the Moscow Justice Department rejected the applications for re ‑ registration, giving a number of new reasons. In particular: the articles of association provided for the establishment of branches and subsidiaries (which was prohibited by the Religions Act) and for engaging in activities which were only generally listed; the applicant church did not have an executive body; the minutes of the general meeting of members did not give the time of the meeting or the names of vote-counters; the name on the seal was different to the name given in the articles of association; and the applicant church had not given its name in the document entitled “Information on the Basic Tenets of Creed” or on the list of participants. The Justice Department also referred to an expert opinion of 22   July 2013 prepared by an expert panel at the Moscow Justice Department, according to which the applicant church was not a religious organisation. 41.     By a decision of 24   May 2013, which was upheld on appeal on 20   August 2013, the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow endorsed the Justice Department’s findings, reiterating them verbatim. 42.     By a decision of 1   July 2015, as upheld on appeal on 16   October   2015, the Izmaylovskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant church’s claim against the Justice Department’s decision of 5   September 2014 and stated that its activities were of a social rather than religious nature and were not compatible with the document entitled “Information on the Basic Tenets of Creed”. d)     Dissolution 43.     On 7   August 2014 the Moscow Justice Department asked the Moscow City Court to dissolve the applicant church, referring to the violations found during examination of the documents submitted for re ‑ registration and to the Shchelkovo Town Court’s judgment of 29 June 2011, which had ruled certain Scientology material to be extremist (see paragraphs 34 and 34 above). 44.     On 23   November 2015 the Moscow City Court ordered the dissolution of the applicant church: “... [the applicant church] has repeatedly and systematically committed gross violations of the Russian laws on non-governmental organisations ... Furthermore, the courts have established that [the applicant church] was founded and registered as a religious organisation. At the same time, it engages in social rather than religious activities ... ... by being registered as a religious organisation but refusing to practice religion and exercising in commercial activities, [the applicant church] enjoys tax and other exemptions without justification. In this situation, [the applicant church]’s failure to engage in religious activities constitutes an irremediable breach of Russian law on non-governmental organisations and prevents its re-registration. ...[The applicant church’s] unlawful activities threaten public order and law. In these circumstances, the Church of Scientology Moscow shall be dissolved in order to protect the rights and interests of others and public interests in line with the principles of democratic society, religious pluralism and the standards established by the Convention. The court is satisfied that [the applicant church], which refrains from any religious activities, still may enjoy its constitutional right to freedom of association, as it may create a commercial or non-commercial organisation in another form which is better suited for its actual functions. Thus, the liquidation will not result in the prohibition of the activities in which [the applicant church] engages at the present time and the balance between public and private interests will be maintained.” 45.     On 29 June 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld on appeal the decision on dissolution. 5.     Application no. 47871/17, Church of Scientology St Petersburg and Others v. Russia 46.     The applicants are the religious group of the Church of Scientology St Petersburg and individual Scientology believers. They are the same applicants as in the case of Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v. Russia (no.   47191/06, §§   32-48, 2   October 2014), in which the Court found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11, on account of the refusal of the Russian authorities to grant legal-entity status to their religious group because it had not been shown that it had existed for at least fifteen years. The domestic courts also identified a number of formal defects in the application for registration, such as an incorrect name of the applicant group’s management body, an incorrect reference to the representative, an unlawful procedure for the election of the president and internal audit commission, violations of the Religions Act as regards the minimum number and age of members and their place of residence, and editorial inconsistencies, unclear wording in articles of association and inaccurate use of terms. 47.     Following the Court’s judgment, on 14   May 2015 the individual applicants asked the domestic courts to re-open the proceedings. 48.     On 23   June 2015 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the Court’s judgment concerned only the application of the fifteen ‑ year requirement and did not have any impact on its overall lawfulness. That decision was quashed on appeal by the St Petersburg City Court, but on 18   December 2015 the District Court gave a new judgment, reiterating the same reasoning. It was upheld on appeal on 27   April 2016 and subsequent cassation appeals were rejected on 23   August and 27   December 2016 by the St Petersburg City Court and the Supreme Court respectively. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Apprehension and escorting of suspects to a police station, and police databases 49.     For legal provisions in respect of escorting suspects to a police station and on police databases, see Shimovolos v. Russia (no.   30194/09, §§   31-43, 21   June 2011). 2.     Suppression of extremism 50.     The Suppression of Extremism Act (Federal Law no.   114-FZ of 25   July   2002, as in force at the material time) defines extremist activities as activities undertaken by non-profit, religious or other organisations, media or individuals consisting of planning, directing, preparing or committing acts aimed at: - a violent change in the constitutional principles of the Russian Federation or the destruction of its integrity; - the public justification of terrorism or other terrorist activities; - incitement to social, racial, national or religious hatred; - advocating the exclusiveness, superiority or inferiority of a person on the grounds of his or her social status, race, ethnic origin, religion or language; - violating the rights, freedoms and lawful interests of a person on the grounds of his or her social status, race, ethnic origin, religion or language; - violent actions or threats preventing citizens from exercising their voting rights or breaching the secrecy of their vote; - violent actions or threats preventing the lawful activities of the State authorities, municipalities, election committees, non-governmental and religious organisations or other organisations; - committing crimes on the grounds of political, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or social hatred or enmity; - propaganda and the public display of Nazi emblems or symbols, or emblems or symbols which are confusingly similar to Nazi emblems or symbols; - making statements in public inciting the above-mentioned activities or the widespread distribution of manifestly extremist materials, as well as their reproduction or storage for the purposes of widespread distribution; - making deliberately false allegations in public that a federal or regional official has committed the crimes specified in this section during the term of his or her office; - organising, preparing and inciting these actions; - financing the above-mentioned activities or providing other assistance, including education, printing services and technical support, a telephone or other connection, or information (section 1(1)). 51.     The Suppression of Extremism Act further defines extremist materials as documents intended for publication (or information on other media) inciting extremist activities or substantiating or justifying the necessity of such activities, including writings by leaders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the Fascist Party of Italy, and publications substantiating or justifying ethnic and/or racial superiority or justifying war crimes or other crimes aimed at the full or partial destruction of any ethnic, social, racial, national or religious group (section 1(1)). 52.     It is prohibited to publish and distribute materials declared extremist by a court or to store such materials with the intention of distributing them. The publication, storage or distribution of extremist materials is punishable under Russian law (section 13). 3.     Registration and dissolution of a religious organisation 53.     Section   12   (1) of the Religions Act (Law no.   125-FZ of 26   September 1997) stated that the registration of a religious organisation could be refused if: “- aims and activities of a religious organisation contradict the Russian Constitution or Russian laws – with reference to specific legal provisions; - the organisation has not been recognised as a religious one; - the articles of association or other submitted materials do not comply with Russian law or contain inaccurate information; - another religious organisation has already been registered under the same name; - the founder(s) has (have) no capacity to act.” 54.     Under section 14(2) of the Religions Act a religious organisation or group shall be dissolved or its activities shall be prohibited under a court’s decision if it: “- disturbs public safety and order; - engages in extremist activities; - incites the destruction of family; - threatens the security of a person, or his or her rights and freedoms; - damages moral principles and health, including by the use of narcotics and psychotropic substances in its religious activities, hypnosis, or by engaging in sexual abuse and other illegal activities; - induces people in a dangerous situation to commit suicide or to refuse medical aid on religious grounds; - impedes access to compulsory education; - forces a religious organisation’s members, followers and other persons to donate their property to that religious organisation; - impedes a person from withdrawing from a religious organisation by means of threats to life, health and property (if such threats are real) or violence, or other illegal means; - induces the breaching of lawful obligations or other violations; - fails repeatedly to provide a federal State registration body (or territorial department thereof) with a report [an activities report submitted in cases where a religious organisation is financed from abroad], as prescribed by section 25.1(2) of this federal law, in the event of other violations of the Russian law.” COMPLAINTS 55.     The applicants in case no.   59470/11 complain under Articles   9 and 11 about the authorities’ refusal to register the Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk as a religious organisation. 56.     The applicant in case no.   64403/11, complains under Article   5 §§   1 and 5, that his arrest and detention on 13   October 2010 were unlawful and that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention. He complains under Articles   8, 9 and 14 about (i) his being listed in the Surveillance Database as an extremist, (ii) the collection of his personal data by the police and (iii) discrimination against him on account of his religious beliefs. Lastly, he complains under Article   2 of Protocol   No.   4 about the monitoring of his movements through the use of the Surveillance Database. 57.     The applicants in cases nos.   37508/12 and 61695/13 complain under Articles   9, 10, 11 and 14 about the ban on the Church of Scientology’s literature and about discrimination against them. 58.     The applicant church in case no.   16761/14 complains under Articles   9 and 11 about the authorities’ refusal to re-register it as a religious organisation and about its dissolution. 59.     The applicants in case no.   47871/17 complain under Articles   9 and 11 about the authorities’ refusal to register the Church as a religious organisation.   QUESTIONS Sultanov and Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk, no.   59470/11   Was there a violation of Mr Sultanov and the applicant church’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11, in view of the authorities’ refusal to (re-)register the applicant church (see Kimlya and Others v. Russia , nos.   76836/01 and 32782/03, ECHR 2009; Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v. Russia , no.   47191/06, 2   October 2014; and Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia , no.   302/02, §§   91-160, 10   June 2010)? In particular, were the above restrictions of the applicants’ rights prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles   9 §   2 and 11 §   2 of the Convention?   Kuropyatnik v. Russia , application no. 64403/11   1.     Was Mr Kuropyatnik deprived of his liberty on 13   October 2010 in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? What was the legal basis for his arrest? Was he arrested in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Shimovolos v. Russia , no.   30194/09, §§   44-57, 21   June 2011)? 2.     Did Mr Kuropyatnik have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his being detained allegedly in contravention of Article   5   § 1, as required by Article   5 §   5 of the Convention (see Nolan and K.   v.   Russia , no.   2512/04, §§   102-105, 12   February 2009)? 3.     Did the registration of Mr Kuropyatnik’s name in the Surveillance Database constitute an interference with his rights, as guaranteed by Articles   8 and 9 of the Convention? Was that interference in accordance with the law and proportionate to the legitimate aims sought to be achieved (see Shimovolos , cited above, §§   67-71)? 4.     Did Mr Kuropyatnik suffer discrimination, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles   8 and 9? 5.     Was there a restriction on Mr Kuropyatnik’s right to liberty of movement, as guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2   §   3 of Protocol No.   4 (see Denizci and Others v.   Cyprus , nos.   25316-25321/94 and 27207/95, §§   400-406, ECHR 2001 ‑ V)?   Church of Scientology Moscow and Others v. Russia, applications nos.   37508/12 and 61695/13   1.     Did the ban on the Church of Scientology literature and its seizure interfere with the applicants’ rights under Article   9, interpreted in the light of Article   10 of the Convention? Was the interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society”, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   2 and 10 §   2 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles   9 and 10?       Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, application no. 16761/14   1.     Was there a violation of the applicant church’s rights under Article   9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11, in view of the authorities’ refusal to re-register the applicant church and the decision to dissolve the applicant church (see Kimlya and Others v.   Russia , cited above; Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v.   Russia , cited above; and Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v.   Russia , cited above)? In particular, were the above restrictions on the applicant church’s rights prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society”, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   2 and 11 §   2 of the Convention? 2.     The parties are invited to provide the judgments delivered by Gagarinskiy District Court on 24   May 2013, by the Moscow City Court on 20   August 2013, by the Izmaylovskiy District Court on 1   July 2015, and by the Moscow City Court on 16   October 2015.   Church of Scientology St Petersburg and Others v. Russia, application no. 47871/17   Was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article   9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article   11, in view of the authorities’ refusal to re-register the Church of Scientology St Petersburg (see Kimlya and Others v. Russia , cited above; Church of Scientology of St Petersburg and Others v. Russia , cited above; and Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v.   Russia , cited above)? In particular, was the above restriction prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society”, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   2 and 11 §   2 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   59470/11 14/09/2011 Aydar Rustemovich SULTANOV 15/08/1965, Nizhnekamsk   Church of Scientology Nizhnekamsk Nizhnekamsk     64403/11 08/10/2011 Vladimir Leonidovich KUROPYATNIK 20/06/1963, Moscow     37508/12 13/06/2012 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW Moscow   Management Centre of Dianetics and Scientology Dissemination Activities 05/03/2002, Moscow   New Era Publishing Group 31/12/1992, Losino Petrovskiy   New Era Publications International 30/12/1976, Glostrup, Denmark   Church of Scientology International Usa 01/06/1982, Los Angeles   Vladislav Sergeyevich Kochemarov 17/01/1976, Moscow   Meruert Nazymbekovna Kozhanova 13/04/1981, Tarusa   Natalya Sergeyevna Lukashkina 19/07/1974, Moscow   Olga Murashkintseva 13/08/1957, Moscow     61695/13 23/09/2013 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW Moscow   Management Centre of Dianetics and Scientology Dissemination Activities 05/03/2002, Moscow   New Era Publishing Group 31/12/1992, Losino Petrovskiy   New Era Publications International 30/12/1976 Glostrup, Denmark     Church of Scientology International USA 01/06/1982, Los Angeles   Vladislav Sergeyevich Kochemarov 17/01/1976, Moscow   Meruert Nazymbekovna Kozhanova 13/04/1981, Tarusa   Natalya Sergeyevna Lukashkina 19/07/1974, Moscow   Olga Murashkintseva 13/08/1957, Moscow     16761/14 20/02/2014 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW Moscow     47871/17 27/06/2017 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ST PETERSBURG Galina Petrovna Shurinova 12/12/1954, St Petersburg   Nadezhda Ivanovna Shchemeleva 14/12/1955, St Petersburg   Anastasia Gennadyevna Terentyeva 04/10/1979, St Petersburg   Ivan Vladimirovich Matsitskiy 25/07/1975, St Petersburg   Yulia Anatolyevna Bryntseva 30/08/1977, St Petersburg   Galina Georgiyevna Frolova 11/01/1955, St Petersburg