CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s531951D4 { width:7.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4BD34A86 { width:27.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DA62232 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CD85DE2 { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s49EECDDF { width:32.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E08B76F { width:7.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCFDB95D8 { width:27.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1989B891 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D3B7E85 { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s219D72FE { width:32.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 21290/18 Sakhib Yakub ogly ALIYEV and Others against Russia lodged on 30 April 2018 communicated on 3 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal prosecution of members of the Church of Scientology in St Petersburg who have been subjected to pre ‑ trial detention and house arrest on the grounds of their membership of the Scientology community. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, read in the light of Articles 10 and 11, on account of the applicants’ criminal prosecution? 2.     Was the applicants’ detention and house arrest based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence as required by Article 5 § 3, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? Were they detained on the ground that they belonged to the Scientology community? 3.     Did the length of the proceedings by which the applicants sought to challenge their pre-trial detention and house arrest, comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the following detention and house arrest orders reviewed “speedily”: 19   October and 18 December 2017 (Mr Aliyev), 20 October and 4   December 2017 (Ms Esaulkova), 17 October and 4 December 2017 (Mr   Matsitskiy), 19 October and 18 December 2017 (Ms   Terenteyva); 30   September, 20 October and 4 December 2017 (Ms Shurinova)? APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Sakhib Yakub ogly ALIYEV 1984 Russian St Petersburg 2. Ivan Vladimirovich MATSITSKIY 1975 Russian St Petersburg 3. Galina Petrovna SHURINOVA 1954 Russian St Petersburg 4. Anastasia Gennadyevna TERENTYEVA 1979 Russian St Petersburg 5. Konstantsiya Valeryevna YESAULKOVA 1970 Russian Staraya village, Leningrad Region