CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .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 }   Communicated on 1 December 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10188/17 Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and Kalin against Russia lodged on 3 February 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia (“the Administrative Centre”), an umbrella organisation for the Jehovah’s Witnesses local and regional organisations operating in Russia, and its chairman, Mr Vasiliy Mikhaylovich Kalin, a Russian national born in 1947 who lives in St Petersburg. They are represented before the Court by Dr   P.   Muzny, a law professor at the University of Geneva. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 2 March 2016 the Deputy Prosecutor General issued an official warning to the Administrative Centre. With reference to a number of the domestic judgments, banning local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses and declaring their publications extremist, the Administrative Centre was advised to cease any extremist activity on pain of liquidation. An administrative complaint against the warning was dismissed by a final decision of the Moscow City Court of 16 January 2017. On 15 March 2017 the Ministry of Justice asked the Supreme Court to declare the Administrative Centre to be an extremist organisation, to liquidate it, together with 395 affiliated local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to confiscate their property. The Ministry alleged that the Administrative Centre had “systematically breached” the Suppression of Extremism Act by importing “extremist” religious publications, storing and distributing them through its local religious organisations, as well as by financing, coordinating and directing local religious organisations, including those whose activities had been declared extremist, and by failing to implement any preventive organisational measures after being warned about the prohibition on any form of extremist activity. On the same day claim, the Ministry, by its own authority, suspended the activities of the Administrative Centre and of the local religious organisations pending the examination of the liquidation claim. The Administrative Centre objected to the claim, arguing that its liquidation would constitute an unjustified interference with the right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and that its activity was entirely peaceful. It further asserted that the local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were independent entities and, therefore, the breaches of the Suppression of Extremism Act on their part should not have been imputed to the Administrative Centre and, vice versa, that its possible liquidation should not entail repercussions for the local religious organisations. By judgment of 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court granted the Ministry’s claim, ordering the liquidation of the Administrative Centre and all the local organisations of Jehovah’s Witness in Russia, as well as the confiscation of their property. In particular, the Supreme Court held as follows: “... the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, recognising the well-founded nature of the demand to liquidate the centralised religious organisation on the grounds specified in the Suppression of Extremism Act, believes that application of such an exceptional measure does not constitute arbitrary interference with, or unlawful restriction on, citizens’ rights to association or freedom of worship. As evident from the case materials, every year for the past seven years facts of extremist activity carried out by [the Administrative Centre], including by its structural subdivisions, have been established in the manner prescribed by law. The measures aimed at counteracting extremist activity that have been taken and that were noted in this decision, including the many prosecutorial measures ..., the unscheduled inspection of the activity of [the Administrative Centre], as well as the organisational arrangements made by [the Administrative Centre] itself, which [it] cited in the objections, did not result in an end to the activity manifesting signs of extremism, therefore, leaving the administrative claim to liquidate [the Administrative Centre] as the only means to put a stop to the activity. The grounds for such interference are established by federal law; the interference pursues a socially significant aim defined by law – counteracting extremist activity, and, accordingly, protecting the rights and lawful interests of man and citizen and ensuring the security of the state and public order. Despite the arguments in [the Administrative Centre’s] objections, such interference is proportionate and necessary in a democratic state ruled by law, since ensuring the elimination of violations of rights, freedoms and lawful interests of the general public, and elimination of a real threat of harm to the person and health of citizens, public order, public security, society and the state was the only means of ensuring a balance of the rights and lawful interests of participants in legal relations in the public-legal domain. The preventive measures provided for by the Suppression of Extremism Act have been exhausted; the federal law does not provide a less severe sanction for carrying out extremist activity ... The liquidation of individual local religious organisations that are part of the structure of [the Administrative Centre], which provides overall direction, did not halt the extremist activity by [the Administrative Centre’s] other structural subdivisions. Moreover, when defending its rights [the Administrative Centre], as seen from the written objections, essentially justifies all such actions, considering them not to be extremist. ... The arguments in the objections, that local religious organisations are not [the Administrative Centre’s] structural subdivisions and therefore are not subject to liquidation, are based on an incorrect interpretation of norms of law. ... When an authorised official or agency files demands for liquidation of a centralised religious organisation, ... that centralised organisation represents the entire structure it has created, including its local religious organisations, for whose activity, collectively or individually, it can be held responsible under sections 7 and 9 of the Suppression of Extremism Act. In this case, the liquidation of local religious organisations as subdivisions of [the Administrative Centre] is a legal consequence connected with the centralised religious organisation’s accountability, prescribed by federal law. The argument in [the Administrative Centre’s] objections that its constitutional right to freedom of association has been violated must be rejected. Holding a religious organisation accountable for engaging in extremist activity cannot be viewed as a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of association. ... Pursuant to sections 7(4) and 9(1)-(4) of the Suppression of Extremism Act, grounds for liquidation of any association include not only facts concerning the activity of its administrative or coordinating agency, but also facts of improper acts by at least one of its regional or other structural subdivisions. ... such facts were established by enforceable court decisions in civil and administrative cases and rulings of judges in administrative offences cases. While not having preclusive effect under Article 64 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation because [the Administrative Centre] did not participate in the consideration of those cases, these enforceable judicial rulings – due to their binding nature ... are relevant and admissible evidence of facts of extremist activity engaged in by the persons listed in those rulings. ... [The Administrative Centre’s] statement that [it] is not the author, publisher or rights holder of the materials and websites referred to by [the Ministry of Justice] also does not constitute grounds for releasing it from accountability. Printed religious books and brochures that are on the Federal List of Extremist Materials were imported and shipped into the Russian Federation by [the Administrative Centre] directly, to thereafter be mass distributed, including illegally, or stored for such purpose. According to the submitted texts of judicial rulings, individual extremist materials that were distributed and confiscated directed the reader to the site http://www.jw.org for more information, which site is on the Federal List of Extremist Materials. According to the evidence submitted ..., any activity of local religious organisations as part of a single structure is carried out under the direct guidance and control of [the Administrative Centre]. The organisational measures listed by [the Administrative Centre] in the objections – studying the Federal List of Extremist Materials, informing believers and local religious organisations about the list and about court decisions to declare certain materials extremist, creating a special commission, appealing the actions and decisions of various agencies and officials, and making a public statement on 24   February 2017 that it is not complicit to incidents of extremist activity – cannot serve as legal grounds to deny the administrative claim.” On 17 July 2017 the Appeal Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 11 and 14 about an unlawful, unjustified and discriminatory interference with their right to freedom of religion on account of the liquidation of the Administrative Centre. The Administrative Centre complains under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 about the confiscation of its property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, on account of the liquidation of the Administrative Centre and the banning of its activities? 2.     Was there a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the Administrative Centre as regards the confiscation of its property?