I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in VLADIMIROV v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-03-06
- Communication date: 2021-08-23
- Application number(s): 45519/18
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 9, 9-1, 14, 18
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)
Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion
Manifest religion or belief) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.542804
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Published on 13 September 2021 1.
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Vladimirov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1999 and lives in Cheboksary.
He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.
2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3.
On 22 January 2016 the applicant was registered with the local military commissariat.
The same day he was declared fit for military service.
4.
On 23 September 2016 he applied for alternative civilian service, however, no reply was given to that application.
5.
On 20 March 2017 he applied for the second time for alternative civilian service, providing all the necessary documents to prove his belief, including an autobiography, appraisal reports from school and college, as well as a certificate from the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia stating that it was the applicant’s personal choice as a Jehovah’s witness whether to perform the military service or not.
6.
On 20 April 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation extremist and ordered its suppression.
7.
On 28 April 2017 the draft commission heard the application for alternative civilian service.
The applicant was not given an opportunity to plead orally in support of his application.
He was allegedly called ‘extremist’ by the chairperson of the draft commission because of his affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The application was dismissed on the same day.
No reasons were provided in breach of relevant provisions of the domestic law, though a handwritten mark “refuse to substitute military service with alternative civilian service because he is a Jehovah’s witness” appeared in the applicant’s personal file.
8.
On 3 July 2017 the applicant brought a case before the Cheboksarskiy District Court of the Chuvashia Republic complaining about scarcity of reasons and asking to reverse the decision of the draft commission.
The applicant and his father gave oral testimonies during the hearings explaining the applicant’s belief, i.e.
that he had been raised in a family where every member (except the father) was Jehovah’s Witness, he had been baptised in that religion and became officially its follower in 2012, he was living according to the principles of his faith and the Bible, his older brother had been granted the right to serve alternative civilian service.
The documents that had been previously submitted to the draft commission were also provided to the court.
9.
On 26 July 2017 the first-instance court found during the hearing that an autobiography page from the applicant’s personal file had gone missing.
As explained by the applicant, it was the only document where he had had the opportunity to describe his convictions.
This was neither contested by the draft commission, nor dismissed by the court.
He further explained that appraisal reports did not have any information about his beliefs since the appraisers assessed him as their student, and not as a person.
10.
On the same day the first-instance court dismissed the action, stating that “no sufficient and convincing evidence had been presented to confirm that the plaintiff had developed strong and firm convictions that would be in contradiction [with the] military service” (“административным истцом не было представлено достаточных и убедительных доказательств, свидетельствующих о его сформировавшихся твердых и прочных религиозных убеждений, противоречащих несению военной службы”).
In particular, it pointed out with reference to the provided certificate that the mere membership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses does not automatically lead to insurmountable conflict with one’s obligation to perform military service.
It further noted that the appraisal reports did not contain any information on his religious beliefs.
11.
In his subsequent appeals the applicant complained that draft commission had not provided any reasons when dismissing his application, and that the court acted ultra vires by providing them itself.
He further complained that the court established an unreasonably high standard of proof and thus, breached the equality of arms.
The appeals were dismissed with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 March 2018.
The higher courts merely repeated the reasoning of the lower court.
12.
On 19 April 2019 the applicant lodged a new request for alternative civilian service, and on 24 April 2019 the military commissariat confirmed its receipt.
13.
On unspecified date the applicant was orally informed of the decision to dismiss his request.
He had never been given a copy of that decision.
14.
To date the applicant has not been allowed to perform alternative civilian service.
The military commissariat has allegedly been searching for him and he may face criminal prosecution.
COMPLAINTS 15.
The applicant complains under Article 9, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about a violation of his freedom of religion by the refusal to replace military service with alternative civilian service due to him being a Jehovah’s witness.
In particular, he complains about scarcity of reasons of the decision of the commission and that the domestic courts set an unreasonably high standard of proof.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of thought or religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention?
Did the military authorities and the domestic courts give due consideration to the applicant’s convictions?
Did they rely on relevant and sufficient reasons in dismissing the applicant’s request for alternative civilian service?
2.
Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights under Article 9 of the Convention on the ground of his affiliation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?
In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment during the processing of his application to replace conscripted military service with alternative civilian service?
What has been the ground for that difference in treatment?
In particular, did his affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses serve as the sole or determinative ground for that difference in treatment?
If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?
Published on 13 September 2021 1.
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Vladimirov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1999 and lives in Cheboksary.
He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.
2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3.
On 22 January 2016 the applicant was registered with the local military commissariat.
The same day he was declared fit for military service.
4.
On 23 September 2016 he applied for alternative civilian service, however, no reply was given to that application.
5.
On 20 March 2017 he applied for the second time for alternative civilian service, providing all the necessary documents to prove his belief, including an autobiography, appraisal reports from school and college, as well as a certificate from the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia stating that it was the applicant’s personal choice as a Jehovah’s witness whether to perform the military service or not.
6.
On 20 April 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation extremist and ordered its suppression.
7.
On 28 April 2017 the draft commission heard the application for alternative civilian service.
The applicant was not given an opportunity to plead orally in support of his application.
He was allegedly called ‘extremist’ by the chairperson of the draft commission because of his affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The application was dismissed on the same day.
No reasons were provided in breach of relevant provisions of the domestic law, though a handwritten mark “refuse to substitute military service with alternative civilian service because he is a Jehovah’s witness” appeared in the applicant’s personal file.
8.
On 3 July 2017 the applicant brought a case before the Cheboksarskiy District Court of the Chuvashia Republic complaining about scarcity of reasons and asking to reverse the decision of the draft commission.
The applicant and his father gave oral testimonies during the hearings explaining the applicant’s belief, i.e.
that he had been raised in a family where every member (except the father) was Jehovah’s Witness, he had been baptised in that religion and became officially its follower in 2012, he was living according to the principles of his faith and the Bible, his older brother had been granted the right to serve alternative civilian service.
The documents that had been previously submitted to the draft commission were also provided to the court.
9.
On 26 July 2017 the first-instance court found during the hearing that an autobiography page from the applicant’s personal file had gone missing.
As explained by the applicant, it was the only document where he had had the opportunity to describe his convictions.
This was neither contested by the draft commission, nor dismissed by the court.
He further explained that appraisal reports did not have any information about his beliefs since the appraisers assessed him as their student, and not as a person.
10.
On the same day the first-instance court dismissed the action, stating that “no sufficient and convincing evidence had been presented to confirm that the plaintiff had developed strong and firm convictions that would be in contradiction [with the] military service” (“административным истцом не было представлено достаточных и убедительных доказательств, свидетельствующих о его сформировавшихся твердых и прочных религиозных убеждений, противоречащих несению военной службы”).
In particular, it pointed out with reference to the provided certificate that the mere membership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses does not automatically lead to insurmountable conflict with one’s obligation to perform military service.
It further noted that the appraisal reports did not contain any information on his religious beliefs.
11.
In his subsequent appeals the applicant complained that draft commission had not provided any reasons when dismissing his application, and that the court acted ultra vires by providing them itself.
He further complained that the court established an unreasonably high standard of proof and thus, breached the equality of arms.
The appeals were dismissed with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 March 2018.
The higher courts merely repeated the reasoning of the lower court.
12.
On 19 April 2019 the applicant lodged a new request for alternative civilian service, and on 24 April 2019 the military commissariat confirmed its receipt.
13.
On unspecified date the applicant was orally informed of the decision to dismiss his request.
He had never been given a copy of that decision.
14.
To date the applicant has not been allowed to perform alternative civilian service.
The military commissariat has allegedly been searching for him and he may face criminal prosecution.
COMPLAINTS 15.
The applicant complains under Article 9, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about a violation of his freedom of religion by the refusal to replace military service with alternative civilian service due to him being a Jehovah’s witness.
In particular, he complains about scarcity of reasons of the decision of the commission and that the domestic courts set an unreasonably high standard of proof.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF KOLYASNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 39776/15 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kolyasnikov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained principally of the unjustified restrictions on their right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention. Some applicants also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of unjustified restrictions on their right to freedom of religion, relying on Article 9 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases listed in the Relevant case-law column of the appended table, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion regarding the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. 11. The applicants in application no. 54264/17, including the two applicants, Ms K.-V. Mani and Ms N. Starikova, complained under Article 8 of the Convention about a violation of their family rights. The Court notes that the expulsion order in respect of the first applicant had been cancelled by the Supreme Court of Russia and, consequently, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 8, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 12. Some applicants further raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. The Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums of just satisfaction indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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)
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39776/15
27/07/2015
Aleksey Sergeyevich KOLYASNIKOV
1975
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
On 28/09/2014 the applicant, a Protestant pastor, was holding a religious service in a café when it was disrupted by the police. He was fined 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) under Article 20.2 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for conducting a public assembly without notice to authorities
Krasnodar Regional Court, 28/01/2015
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)
7,500
41260/17
05/06/2017
Magrifa Myrzashiyevna SYDIKOVA
1960
Pavel Vladimirovich ORLOV
1972
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 20/09/2016 the Supreme Court of Russia declared Aum Shinrikyō, a Japanese religious organisation, to be a terrorist organisation and banned its activities in Russia. The applicants, Russian followers of Aum Shinrikyō, were subsequently interviewed by police regarding their involvement. Their appeals against the Supreme Court’s ban were rejected because they were not parties to the original proceedings and the decision did not affect their rights. Supreme Court of Russia, 07/02/2017 and 10/02/2017
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 159, 10 June 2010,
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 199-207 and 252, 7 June 2022 (failure to ensure the participation of followers in the proceedings leading to the banning of their religious organisation and consider the impact of the ban on their rights)
7,500
54264/17
25/07/2017
(3 applicants)
Viktorimmanuvel MANI
1983
Keti-Viktoriya Viktorimmanuvelovna MANI
2016
Natalya Viktorovna STARIKOVA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
On 04/12/2016 the first applicant, an Indian national and minister of the Evangelical Christian Church “God’s Love”, held a religious service in a rented office space in Naberezhnyye Chelny. After the service, he sold religious literature to an attendee. He was charged under Article 5.26 (5) of the Code of Administrative Offences for conducting missionary work without proper authorisation. The Supreme Court of Russia, on 17/11/2017, upheld the fine but cancelled the removal order due to the first applicant’s family ties in Russia. The second and third applicants are his wife and daughter who are Russian nationals. Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 25/01/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500,
to be paid to the applicant, Mr V. Mani
4513/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich TUGUZHEKOV
1952
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
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 was imposed on him. Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia, 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)
7,500
7949/18
29/12/2017
Tatyana Aleksandrovna MANDRICHENKO
1962
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was fined RUB 6,000 under Article 5.26 of the CAO for talking to a street seller about the Bible which was taken to constitute unlawful missionary activities. Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, 05/07/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
10054/18
09/02/2018
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for using a book during a religious gathering. The book in question was authored by an author whose other publication had previously been declared extremist. Fine of RUB 3,000 was imposed on the applicant. 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)
7,500
45519/18
19/09/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VLADIMIROV
1999
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was refused alternative civilian service by the draft commission without being given an opportunity to present his beliefs, and solely on the grounds of his religious affiliation. The courts upheld the refusal despite evidence of his genuine religious convictions. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/03/2018
Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§ 111 and 124-125, ECHR 2011
(refusal of alternative civilian service to Jehovah’s Witnesses)
7,500
16647/19
14/03/2019
BIBLEYSKIY TSENTR POSOLSTVO IISUSA NIZHNIY NOVGOROD
1996
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 personal faith. Moskovskiy District Court of Novgorod, 18/09/2018
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
63388/19
27/11/2019
RO KHRISTIANSKAYA METODISTSKAYA TSERKOV ST. UGOLNAYA G. VLADIVOSTOKA
1998
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
687/20
12/12/2019
Yuriy Khazertaliyevich DACHEV
1976
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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, was fined RUB 10,000 under Article 20.2 (2) of the CAO for holding an event without notifying local authorities. Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygea, 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)
7,500
49747/20
30/10/2020
Ilya Alekseyevich NOZDRACHEV
1990
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
5652/21
31/12/2020
Shakhboz Kholmatovich MALIKOV
1991
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
The applicant, a Muslim detainee in a Russian correctional facility, was placed in a disciplinary cell for seven days for performing night-time religious prayer (Salah) in his cell, which was considered a breach of the prison schedule. Prosecutor’s Office of Syktyvkar, 26/11/2020
Korostelev v. Russia, no. 29290/10, 12 May 2020
(disciplinary measures for performing acts of warship in prison)
2,500
6417/21
30/12/2020
Valeri SUCKAU
1970
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 Buryatia, 04/08/2020
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
6471/21
29/12/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich KOZUBSKIY
1990
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
The applicant, an Orthodox Christian detainee, was refused accommodation of his religious dietary requirements during the traditional fasting period and faced restrictions on attending the prison chapel during State holidays. Federal Penitentiary Authority in the Republic of Komi, 16/12/2020
Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, §§ 42-55, 7 December 2010,
Moroz v. Ukraine, no. 5187/07, §§ 105-09, 2 March 2017 (restrictions on dietary accommodation and chapel visits)
2,500
38862/21
12/07/2021
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
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)
7,500
47223/21
10/09/2021
SANKT-PETERBURGSKAYA BOO VECHERNIY SVET
1999
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KOLYASNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 39776/15 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kolyasnikov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained principally of the unjustified restrictions on their right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention. Some applicants also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained of unjustified restrictions on their right to freedom of religion, relying on Article 9 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases listed in the Relevant case-law column of the appended table, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion regarding the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a violation of Article 9 of the Convention. 11. The applicants in application no. 54264/17, including the two applicants, Ms K.-V. Mani and Ms N. Starikova, complained under Article 8 of the Convention about a violation of their family rights. The Court notes that the expulsion order in respect of the first applicant had been cancelled by the Supreme Court of Russia and, consequently, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 8, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 12. Some applicants further raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. The Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums of just satisfaction indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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)
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39776/15
27/07/2015
Aleksey Sergeyevich KOLYASNIKOV
1975
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
On 28/09/2014 the applicant, a Protestant pastor, was holding a religious service in a café when it was disrupted by the police. He was fined 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) under Article 20.2 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for conducting a public assembly without notice to authorities
Krasnodar Regional Court, 28/01/2015
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)
7,500
41260/17
05/06/2017
Magrifa Myrzashiyevna SYDIKOVA
1960
Pavel Vladimirovich ORLOV
1972
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 20/09/2016 the Supreme Court of Russia declared Aum Shinrikyō, a Japanese religious organisation, to be a terrorist organisation and banned its activities in Russia. The applicants, Russian followers of Aum Shinrikyō, were subsequently interviewed by police regarding their involvement. Their appeals against the Supreme Court’s ban were rejected because they were not parties to the original proceedings and the decision did not affect their rights. Supreme Court of Russia, 07/02/2017 and 10/02/2017
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 159, 10 June 2010,
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 199-207 and 252, 7 June 2022 (failure to ensure the participation of followers in the proceedings leading to the banning of their religious organisation and consider the impact of the ban on their rights)
7,500
54264/17
25/07/2017
(3 applicants)
Viktorimmanuvel MANI
1983
Keti-Viktoriya Viktorimmanuvelovna MANI
2016
Natalya Viktorovna STARIKOVA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
On 04/12/2016 the first applicant, an Indian national and minister of the Evangelical Christian Church “God’s Love”, held a religious service in a rented office space in Naberezhnyye Chelny. After the service, he sold religious literature to an attendee. He was charged under Article 5.26 (5) of the Code of Administrative Offences for conducting missionary work without proper authorisation. The Supreme Court of Russia, on 17/11/2017, upheld the fine but cancelled the removal order due to the first applicant’s family ties in Russia. The second and third applicants are his wife and daughter who are Russian nationals. Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 25/01/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500,
to be paid to the applicant, Mr V. Mani
4513/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich TUGUZHEKOV
1952
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
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 was imposed on him. Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia, 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)
7,500
7949/18
29/12/2017
Tatyana Aleksandrovna MANDRICHENKO
1962
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was fined RUB 6,000 under Article 5.26 of the CAO for talking to a street seller about the Bible which was taken to constitute unlawful missionary activities. Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, 05/07/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
10054/18
09/02/2018
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for using a book during a religious gathering. The book in question was authored by an author whose other publication had previously been declared extremist. Fine of RUB 3,000 was imposed on the applicant. 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)
7,500
45519/18
19/09/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VLADIMIROV
1999
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was refused alternative civilian service by the draft commission without being given an opportunity to present his beliefs, and solely on the grounds of his religious affiliation. The courts upheld the refusal despite evidence of his genuine religious convictions. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/03/2018
Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§ 111 and 124-125, ECHR 2011
(refusal of alternative civilian service to Jehovah’s Witnesses)
7,500
16647/19
14/03/2019
BIBLEYSKIY TSENTR POSOLSTVO IISUSA NIZHNIY NOVGOROD
1996
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 personal faith. Moskovskiy District Court of Novgorod, 18/09/2018
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
63388/19
27/11/2019
RO KHRISTIANSKAYA METODISTSKAYA TSERKOV ST. UGOLNAYA G. VLADIVOSTOKA
1998
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
687/20
12/12/2019
Yuriy Khazertaliyevich DACHEV
1976
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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, was fined RUB 10,000 under Article 20.2 (2) of the CAO for holding an event without notifying local authorities. Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygea, 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)
7,500
49747/20
30/10/2020
Ilya Alekseyevich NOZDRACHEV
1990
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
5652/21
31/12/2020
Shakhboz Kholmatovich MALIKOV
1991
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
The applicant, a Muslim detainee in a Russian correctional facility, was placed in a disciplinary cell for seven days for performing night-time religious prayer (Salah) in his cell, which was considered a breach of the prison schedule. Prosecutor’s Office of Syktyvkar, 26/11/2020
Korostelev v. Russia, no. 29290/10, 12 May 2020
(disciplinary measures for performing acts of warship in prison)
2,500
6417/21
30/12/2020
Valeri SUCKAU
1970
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 Buryatia, 04/08/2020
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
6471/21
29/12/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich KOZUBSKIY
1990
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
The applicant, an Orthodox Christian detainee, was refused accommodation of his religious dietary requirements during the traditional fasting period and faced restrictions on attending the prison chapel during State holidays. Federal Penitentiary Authority in the Republic of Komi, 16/12/2020
Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, §§ 42-55, 7 December 2010,
Moroz v. Ukraine, no. 5187/07, §§ 105-09, 2 March 2017 (restrictions on dietary accommodation and chapel visits)
2,500
38862/21
12/07/2021
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
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)
7,500
47223/21
10/09/2021
SANKT-PETERBURGSKAYA BOO VECHERNIY SVET
1999
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
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)
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39776/15
27/07/2015
Aleksey Sergeyevich KOLYASNIKOV
1975
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
On 28/09/2014 the applicant, a Protestant pastor, was holding a religious service in a café when it was disrupted by the police. He was fined 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) under Article 20.2 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for conducting a public assembly without notice to authorities
Krasnodar Regional Court, 28/01/2015
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)
7,500
41260/17
05/06/2017
Magrifa Myrzashiyevna SYDIKOVA
1960
Pavel Vladimirovich ORLOV
1972
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 20/09/2016 the Supreme Court of Russia declared Aum Shinrikyō, a Japanese religious organisation, to be a terrorist organisation and banned its activities in Russia. The applicants, Russian followers of Aum Shinrikyō, were subsequently interviewed by police regarding their involvement. Their appeals against the Supreme Court’s ban were rejected because they were not parties to the original proceedings and the decision did not affect their rights. Supreme Court of Russia, 07/02/2017 and 10/02/2017
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 159, 10 June 2010,
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 199-207 and 252, 7 June 2022 (failure to ensure the participation of followers in the proceedings leading to the banning of their religious organisation and consider the impact of the ban on their rights)
7,500
54264/17
25/07/2017
(3 applicants)
Viktorimmanuvel MANI
1983
Keti-Viktoriya Viktorimmanuvelovna MANI
2016
Natalya Viktorovna STARIKOVA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
On 04/12/2016 the first applicant, an Indian national and minister of the Evangelical Christian Church “God’s Love”, held a religious service in a rented office space in Naberezhnyye Chelny. After the service, he sold religious literature to an attendee. He was charged under Article 5.26 (5) of the Code of Administrative Offences for conducting missionary work without proper authorisation. The Supreme Court of Russia, on 17/11/2017, upheld the fine but cancelled the removal order due to the first applicant’s family ties in Russia. The second and third applicants are his wife and daughter who are Russian nationals. Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 25/01/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023 (unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500,
to be paid to the applicant, Mr V. Mani
4513/18
05/01/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich TUGUZHEKOV
1952
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
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 was imposed on him. Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia, 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)
7,500
7949/18
29/12/2017
Tatyana Aleksandrovna MANDRICHENKO
1962
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was fined RUB 6,000 under Article 5.26 of the CAO for talking to a street seller about the Bible which was taken to constitute unlawful missionary activities. Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region, 05/07/2017
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
10054/18
09/02/2018
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for using a book during a religious gathering. The book in question was authored by an author whose other publication had previously been declared extremist. Fine of RUB 3,000 was imposed on the applicant. 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)
7,500
45519/18
19/09/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VLADIMIROV
1999
Muzny Petr
Geneva
The applicant, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was refused alternative civilian service by the draft commission without being given an opportunity to present his beliefs, and solely on the grounds of his religious affiliation. The courts upheld the refusal despite evidence of his genuine religious convictions. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/03/2018
Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§ 111 and 124-125, ECHR 2011
(refusal of alternative civilian service to Jehovah’s Witnesses)
7,500
16647/19
14/03/2019
BIBLEYSKIY TSENTR POSOLSTVO IISUSA NIZHNIY NOVGOROD
1996
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 personal faith. Moskovskiy District Court of Novgorod, 18/09/2018
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
63388/19
27/11/2019
RO KHRISTIANSKAYA METODISTSKAYA TSERKOV ST. UGOLNAYA G. VLADIVOSTOKA
1998
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
687/20
12/12/2019
Yuriy Khazertaliyevich DACHEV
1976
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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, was fined RUB 10,000 under Article 20.2 (2) of the CAO for holding an event without notifying local authorities. Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygea, 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)
7,500
49747/20
30/10/2020
Ilya Alekseyevich NOZDRACHEV
1990
Chugunov Sergey Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
5652/21
31/12/2020
Shakhboz Kholmatovich MALIKOV
1991
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
The applicant, a Muslim detainee in a Russian correctional facility, was placed in a disciplinary cell for seven days for performing night-time religious prayer (Salah) in his cell, which was considered a breach of the prison schedule. Prosecutor’s Office of Syktyvkar, 26/11/2020
Korostelev v. Russia, no. 29290/10, 12 May 2020
(disciplinary measures for performing acts of warship in prison)
2,500
6417/21
30/12/2020
Valeri SUCKAU
1970
Chugunov Sergei Vladimirovich
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 Buryatia, 04/08/2020
Ossewaarde v. Russia, no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023
(unjustified restrictions on missionary work)
7,500
6471/21
29/12/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich KOZUBSKIY
1990
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
The applicant, an Orthodox Christian detainee, was refused accommodation of his religious dietary requirements during the traditional fasting period and faced restrictions on attending the prison chapel during State holidays. Federal Penitentiary Authority in the Republic of Komi, 16/12/2020
Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, §§ 42-55, 7 December 2010,
Moroz v. Ukraine, no. 5187/07, §§ 105-09, 2 March 2017 (restrictions on dietary accommodation and chapel visits)
2,500
38862/21
12/07/2021
Sergey Zhamsuyevich BALDANOV
1991
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
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)
7,500
47223/21
10/09/2021
SANKT-PETERBURGSKAYA BOO VECHERNIY SVET
1999
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
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)
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.