CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 19 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 54264/17 Viktorimmanuvel MANI and others against Russia lodged on 25 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are an Indian spiritual teacher, his Russian wife and their infant child who also has Russian nationality. The first applicant was held liable for a newly created administrative offence of unauthorised “missionary activities” which had been introduced into Russian legislation in 2016 (for the text of the amendments, see Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17). He was sanctioned with a fine and administrative removal from Russia which had the effect of splitting up their family (final decision: the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 25 January 2017). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in connection with the first applicant’s prosecution for the organisation of a service of worship? In particular, were the legal provisions sufficiently foreseeable in their application? Did the Russian courts draw a distinction between “missionary activities” carried out by a religious group and individual evangelism and did they indicate any facts buttressing their conclusion (see Kokkinakis v. Greece , 25   May 1993, §§ 48-49, Series A no.   260 ‑ A)? Did they consider whether the sanction was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?   2.     Does the difference in treatment between Russian and foreign nationals under sections 4 and 5 of Article 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offences amount to a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9?   3.     Did the domestic authorities consider the impact of the removal decision on the welfare of the third applicant, an infant child, and on the applicants’ family life in general, as they were required under Article 8 of the Convention (compare Nolan and K. v. Russia , no. 2512/04, §§ 83-89, 12   February 2009, and Gablishvili v. Russia , no. 39428/12, §§ 49-61, 26   June 2014)? Was there a violation of that provision?   4.     Did the first applicant have an effective domestic remedy for his grievances under Articles 8 and 9, as required by Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with those provisions? Did the domestic courts balance properly the various interests at stake in the present case?