CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90 October 2006 Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia - 72881/01 Judgment 5.10.2006 [Section I] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Bad-faith denial of re-registration, resulting in the applicant’s loss of legal status: violation   Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of religion Bad-faith denial of re-registration, resulting in the applicant association’s loss of legal status: violation   Facts : In 1997 a new law was enacted (the Religions Act) which required that religious associations established before 1997 bring their articles of association in compliance with it and re-submit them for registration. Failure to do so within the time-limit entailed the termination of the organisation’s status as a legal entity. In 1999 the applicant branch was denied re-registration. The Moscow Justice Department based its refusal on the fact that the number of founding members was insufficient and that there were no documents to prove that the members were lawfully resident in Russia. It also held that since it had the word “branch” in its name and the founders were foreign nationals, the organisation was ineligible for re‑registration as a religious organisation under Russian law. The applicant challenged that refusal before a district court, where the Justice Department argued that the applicant branch should be denied registration as it was a “paramilitary organisation”. The Justice Department also contended that it was not legitimate to use the word “army” in the name of a religious organisation. The District Court endorsed that argument and held, in particular, that the applicant’s articles of association failed to describe adequately the organisation’s faith and objectives. A city court upheld that judgment on appeal. The applicant lodged applications for supervisory review with the City Court and the Supreme Court which were refused. In the meantime the time-limit for re-registration of religious organisations had expired and in 2001 a district court had struck off the applicant from the State Register of Legal Entities. Law : Articles 9 and 11 – The Court examined the two main arguments advanced by the domestic authorities for refusing the applicant’s re-registration, namely its “foreign origin” and its internal structure and religious activities. The Court found no reasonable and objective justification for a difference in treatment of Russian and foreign nationals as regards their ability to exercise the right to freedom of religion through participation in the life of organised religious communities. Moreover, that ground for refusal had no legal foundation. As to the applicant’s faith and objectives, it had been the national courts’ task to elucidate the applicable legal requirements and give the applicant clear notice how to prepare the documents in order to be able to obtain re-registration. That had not been done. Accordingly, the courts could not rely on that ground for refusing registration. Moreover, it was not for the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express them were legitimate. Although the applicant branch was organised using ranks similar to those used in the army and their members wore uniforms, it could not seriously be maintained that the applicant branch advocated a violent change of constitutional foundations or undermined the integrity or security of the State. The domestic findings on this point were devoid of factual basis. Nor was there any evidence to show that the applicant had contravened any Russian law or pursued objectives other than those listed in its articles of association. The domestic courts’ finding in this regard lacked evidentiary basis and was arbitrary. To sum up, in denying the applicant’s re-registration the authorities had not acted in good faith and had neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant’s religious community. Accordingly, there had been an unjustified interference with its right to freedom of religion and association. Conclusion :violation of Article   11 read in the light of Article   9 (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. For further details, see Press Release no. 559.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes