CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2021

.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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE1E06FED { width:87.96%; margin-left:6.85pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sA063285C { width:4.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC2328DC1 { width:78.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sAB403459 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB900F121 { width:4.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s7B59D332 { width:78.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sEE101E45 { width:17.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Communicated on 2 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 74852/14 Mykhaylo Viktorovych ILYIN and Others against Ukraine lodged on 24 November 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are Ukrainian nationals who live in Kyiv. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are followers of Rev. Moon, the founder of the religious denomination known as the Unification Church. They created and attempted to have registered as a legal entity a religious community entitled “Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity” in the Kyiv Obolonsky District. For this purpose they applied to the Kyiv City State Administration (“the Administration”). On 30 August 2007 the State Committee for Nationalities and Religion informed the Administration that in the Unification Church’s doctrine family was of central importance and Rev. Moon’s blessing was required for marriage and for the matching of spouses. In the Committee’s opinion this was contrary to Article 5 § 5 of the Family Code guaranteeing that family life was to be free from interference, to Article 7 proclaiming equality of men and women and   non-discrimination in family matters and Article 24 providing that marriage was to be based on free consent. The Committee also stated that Rev. Moon had negative reputation in many countries, that he had been prosecuted for tax evasion in the United States and the Republic of Korea, that the Unification Church had been recognised as a destructive cult by the German authorities and that. while it had been registered in Ukraine in the 1990s, registration had been withdrawn because of   breaches of legislation. Following that report, on 10 October 2007 the Administration refused registration but on 18 December 2009 the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court (“the Circuit Court”) quashed that decision and ordered the Administration to reexamine the group’s application. On 8 April 2010 the Administration again refused to register the community. It referred to section 15 of the Freedom of Conscience and Religions Organisations Act (“the Act”), providing that registration of a religious organisation could be refused if the statute of the organisation or its activities contravened the law, and to the above-mentioned Committee report. On 4 April 2011 the applicants appealed to the Circuit Court. In the course of the proceedings before the   court the Administration stated that it had received complaints concerning the alleged destructive influence of the applicant group’s seminars on their participants and that the Administration’s officials had attempted to obtain from the first applicant (Mr Ilyin) a permission to attend the seminars as part of the pre-registration enquiry but to no avail. This had made it impossible to verify the group’s compliance with relevant legislation and had created a risk that its registration would expose citizens to the group’s undue influence, in breach of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing human dignity, freedom of individual development and equality (Articles 21-25 of the Constitution), sections 3 and 4 of the Act guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom to adopt and change religion as well as equality before the law regardless of religion and the Family Code’s provisions referred to in the Committee report (see above). On 26 May 2011 the Circuit Court rejected the applicants’ appeal. The court held that a distinct requirement for registration of a religious community under the Act was that it had to belong to one specific confession. However, according to the statute of the community and statements of its representatives in the course of the court proceedings, the goal of the applicant community was to unify believers of different denominations and confessions. The law did not provide for registration of interconfessional communities as religious organisations. The court also endorsed the Administration’s arguments against registration. The applicants appealed, mainly arguing that the negative assessment of the Administration endorsed by the Circuit Court was unsubstantiated. They also considered that the Circuit Court’s interpretation that domestic law did not provide for registration of inter-confessional organisations was tantamount to rejection of registration on the basis that the applicants did not belong to a “traditional” Christian denomination. Moreover, unification of different denominations was their organisation’s ultimate goal, not the basis for its doctrine and identity. On 14 February 2012 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal and on 29 May 2014 the High Administrative Court upheld the Circuit Court’s judgment, essentially repeating its reasoning. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention that the refusal of registration breached their rights to freedom of religion and association. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 9 and/or Article 11 of the Convention, taking into account that, in the sphere in question, the relevant provisions should be interpreted in the light of each other (see, for example, Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia , no.   72881/01, §§ 57-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ XI, and Kimlya and Others v.   Russia , nos.   76836/01 and 32782/03, ECHR 2009)?     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Born in 1 Mykhaylo Viktorovych ILYIN 1972 2 Volodymyr Mykolayovych BILENKO 1969 3 Yuriy Viktorovych KAPRANENKO 1969 4 Lyudmyla Valeriyivna MALTSEVA 1979 5 Oleksiy Yuriyovych MAZURENKO 1977 6 Mykola Yuriyovych MAZURENKO 1978 7 Andriy Valentynovych PANTYUSHENKO 1984 8 Andriy Petrovych TURCHYN 1986 9 Nadiya Ivanivna VORONKOVA 1974