CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 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 29 March 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 7949/18 and 8475/18 Tatyana Aleksandrovna MANDRICHENKO against Russia and Pavel Viktorovich KOTLYARENKO against Russia lodged on 29 December 2017 and 29 December 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The applicants are Russian nationals, and participants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were 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). They were sanctioned with fines (final decision: the Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, 5   July 2017). QUESTIONS 1.     Was there a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in connection with the applicants’ prosecution for their communication with Ms Ch. on 12   March 2017? 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.     Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment on account of their religion? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?