CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   559 5.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MOSCOW BRANCH OF THE SALVATION ARMY v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Moscow branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (application no. 72881/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention, and that no separate examination of the same issues under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was required.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, the Moscow branch of the Salvation Army, was present in Russia in 1913 to 1923 and then officially registered as a religious organisation in 1992.   In 1997 a new law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations 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 State registration. Failure to submit an application for re-registration within the time-limit entailed the termination of the organisation’s legal entity status.   In August 1999 the applicant branch was denied re-registration. The Moscow Justice Department based its argument for 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 that 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 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow the Department advanced a new argument. It maintained that the applicant branch should be denied registration as it was a “paramilitary organisation”. In particular it noted that its members wore uniforms and served in the “army”. It 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 further held that the applicant branch’s articles of association failed to describe adequately the organisation’s faith and objectives. Furthermore, the court concluded that it was clear that the organisation’s articles association assumed that the organisations activities would lead its members to break Russian law as it sought to limit the organisation’s liability for the actions of its members.   The Moscow City Court upheld that judgment on appeal. The applicant branch then lodged an application for supervisory review with the City Court and the Supreme Court.   In the meantime the time-limit for re-registration of religious organisations expired and in September 2001 Taganskiy District Court of Moscow struck off the organisation from the State Register of Legal Entities.   The applicant branch’s requests to lodge an application for supervisory review were refused.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 May 2001 and declared partly admissible on 24 June 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant branch complains that the loss of its legal status severely curtailed its ability to manifest its religion in worship and practice. It relied on Articles 9 and 11 and 14.     Decision of the Court   Articles 9 and 11 The Court examined the two main arguments advanced by the domestic authorities for refusing the applicant's re-registration. They concerned the applicant branch’s “foreign origin” and its internal structure and religious activities.   As regards the “foreign origin” of the applicant branch, 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. It noted that the Religions Act expressly provided for registration of Russian religious organisations subordinate to the central governing body located abroad. Accordingly, it determined that that ground for refusal had no legal foundation.   As to the domestic courts’ complaint regarding the lack of clarity about the applicant branch’s faith and objectives, the Court emphasised that it was 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, however, been done. Accordingly, the Court considered that the courts could not rely on that ground for refusing registration.   Referring to the claims that the applicant branch was a paramilitary organisation, the Court pointed out that, it was not for the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express them were legitimate. Furthermore, the Court held that, 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. No evidence to that effect was produced before the domestic authorities or by the Government. It therefore followed that the domestic findings on this point were devoid of factual basis.   As to the District Court’s assertion that, according to the organisation’s articles of association, the applicant branch would “inevitably break Russian law”, the Court noted that there was no evidence to show that in the seven years of its existence the applicant branch, its members or founders had contravened any Russian law or pursued objectives other than those listed in its articles of association, notably the advancement of the Christian faith and acts of charity. It followed that that finding also lacked evidentiary basis and was therefore arbitrary.   In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that, in denying registration to the Moscow Branch of The Salvation Army, the Moscow authorities did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community. It therefore considered that there had been an unjustified interference with the applicant's right to freedom of religion and association.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.