CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 7 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53097/08 VOOOBIVP ‘SODEYSTVIYE’ against Russia lodged on 20 October 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns dissolution of the applicant organisation ordered by domestic courts at the request of the Federal Registration Service in the Vladimir Region on account of the applicant organisation’s failure to submit to that authority activity reports and to inform it of the election of its chairman and its co-chairmen as well as of the change of the address and internal structure. The final domestic decision in the case was delivered by the Supreme Court of Russia on 22 April 2008.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of association secured by Article   11 of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ decision on dissolution of the applicant organisation? In particular, was the dissolution   justified within the meaning of Article   11 § 2 of the Convention? More specifically: (a) Was it prescribed by law? (b) Did it pursue a legitimate aim? If yes, what was that aim? (c) Was the measure complained of necessary in a democratic society? Was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued? In particular, were the shortcomings established by the domestic courts sufficiently serious to warrant the   dissolution of the applicant organisation? Were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” to justify the measure complained of? Could the shortcomings listed by the domestic courts be rectified without the dissolution being ordered? Did the domestic law provide for an alternative, more lenient sanction for the shortcomings imputed to the applicant organisation?   2.     Did the applicant organisation has at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its Convention complaint under Article 11, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?