CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD87A9275 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   4513/18 Sergey Anatolyevich TUGUZHEKOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 December 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 9 of the Convention relating to unjustified restrictions on freedom of religion which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see the relevant case-law in the appendix).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 9 of the Convention (unjustified restrictions on freedom of religion) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth / registration   Representative’s name and location Substance of the complaint Final domestic decision Court name Date Relevant case-law (legal issue) Other complaints under well-established case-law     4513/18 05/01/2018 Sergey Anatolyevich TUGUZHEKOV 1952   Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina Novorossiysk The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for using a book during a religious gathering which had been declared extremist. Fine of RUB 2,000. Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakasiya, 05/07/2017 Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   199-207, 7   June 2022 (banning of religious publications as extremist, and prosecution for their possession and use)       10054/18 09/02/2018 Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV 1991   Marina Alekseyevna Dubrovina Novorossiysk The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for using a book during a religious gathering as the book was authored by an author whose other publication had been declared extremist. Fine of RUB 3,000. Krasnodar Regional Court, 09/08/2017 Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   199-207, 7   June 2022 (banning of religious publications as extremist, and prosecution for their possession and use)       16647/19 14/03/2019   BIBLEYSKIY TSENTR POSOLSTVO IISUSA NIZHNIY NOVGOROD 1996   Sergei Vladimirovich Chugunov Moscow The applicant church was fined RUB   100,000 for illegal missionary activity after sharing an interview on its Telegram channel with a Zimbabwean national, in which she discussed her faith. Moskovskiy District Court of Novgorod, 18/09/2018 Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17, 7   March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)       63388/19 27/11/2019   RO KHRISTIANSKAYA METODISTSKAYA TSERKOV ST. UGOLNAYA G. VLADIVOSTOKA 1998   Sergei Vladimirovich Chugunov Moscow The applicant church was fined RUB   100,000 for illegal missionary activity for organising the Far Eastern Conference for children’s ministers of Christian churches on premises not specifically designated for religious activities. Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok, 24/06/2019 Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17, 7   March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)       687/20 12/12/2019 Yuriy Khazertaliyevich DACHEV 1976   Sergey Vladimirovich Chugunov Moscow Forced disruption of the North Caucasus Faith Conference by a police squad; the applicant, pastor of the Evangelical Church Word of Life in Maykop, fined RUB 10,000 under Article 20.2 part 2 of the CAO for holding an event without notifying local authorities. Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya, 17/06/2019 Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia , no. 184/02, 11 January 2007; Krupko and Others v. Russia , no. 26587/07, §§ 54-57, 26 June 2014 (dispersal of religious meetings) Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of peaceful assembly – Disruption of a religious meeting     49747/20 30/10/2020 Ilya Alekseyevich NOZDRACHEV 1990   Sergey Vladimirovich Chugunov Moscow The applicant, a member of the Evangelical Church of Bethany, was fined RUB 5,000 for engaging in unauthorised missionary activities by sharing information about an upcoming church event on a social network. Obninsk Town Court, 30/06/2020 Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17, 7   March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)       6417/21 30/12/2020 Valeri SUCKAU 1970   Sergei Vladimirovich Chugunov Moscow The applicant, a German national and follower of the Evangelical Church, was fined RUB 30,000 for engaging in unauthorised missionary activities by sharing his religious views with members of a local Russian Evangelical Church during a picnic in a forest. Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya, 04/08/2020 Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17, 7   March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work) Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination - Higher fines for non-Russian nationals violate the prohibition on discrimination, see Ossewaarde , §§ 54-57.     38862/21 12/07/2021 Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV 1991   Aleksandr Vasilyevich Popkov Sochi The applicant, a practitioner of Falun Gong, was fined RUB 10,000 for engaging in unauthorised missionary activities by participating in group meditation with two other individuals. Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi, 15/01/2021 Ossewaarde v. Russia , no.   27227/17, 7   March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)       47223/21 10/09/2021 SANKT-PETERBURGSKAYA BOO VECHERNIY SVET 1999   Maksim Vladimirovich Olenichev St Petersburg The applicant is a charitable organisation aimed at advancing religious beliefs based on the ideas of William Marrion Branham. On 21/05/2020, the St Petersburg City Court declared the organisation extremist in the absence of any indication of violence, hate or discrimination in its teachings or activities. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 10/03/2021 Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   157-59, 7   June 2022 (banning of religious organisations on the basis of an excessively broad interpretation of extremism) Art. 14 - Prohibition of discrimination – See Taganrog LRO , §§   286-87.