CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 23 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37874/11 Zikrullokhodzha Askarovich MANSUROV against Russia lodged on 4 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of extremist activities (Article 280 § 1 of the Criminal Code) for distributing in a local mosque an Islamic book “Abu Kadma’s story about a woman who made a horse lash of her hair” printed out from Internet. He was sentenced to a fine. QUESTIONS 1.     The Government are requested to submit a copy and an English translation of the expert opinion of 8 July 2009 by Kemerovo State University.   2.     Did the applicant’s conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of religion or expression under Articles 9 §   1 or 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Articles 9 § 2 and 10 § 2? Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and the applicable standards under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, did they specify which parts of the book were problematic (see Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova , no.   41827/02, §   36, 9 January 2007)? Did they draw their own conclusions from the expert reports (see point 23 of the Supreme Court’s resolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011)?