CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s2EBECB52 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; list-style-position:inside } .sA0D17C33 { width:1.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 4 September 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15962/15 SAMARA LRO and others against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A detailed list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     The liquidation of the Samara organisation (application no.   15962/15) 1.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Samara (the “Samara LRO”) and six individual members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ congregations of the Samara Region. 2.     On 29 January 2013 the Novokuybyshevsk town police (the Samara Region) inspected the premises rented by the Samara LRO in which the Novokuybyshevsk community of Jehovah’s Witnesses held their religious services. During the inspection, ten issues of the brochures Jehovah’s Witnesses – Who Are They? What Do They Believe? and You Can Be God’s Friend! , which had been declared extremist by the Rostov Regional Court on 11   September 2009, were uncovered and seized. The applicant Mr   Moskvin, a community elder, was charged with “unlawful storage of extremist material with intent of mass circulation”, an offence under Article   20.29 of the Administrative Offences Code. On 3   April 2013 the Novokuybyshevskiy Town Court convicted the applicant Mr Moskvin as charged and fined him RUB 3,000. On 13 May 2013 the Samara Regional Court rejected the appeal. 3.     On 5 and 26 June 2013 the town prosecutor, referring to Mr   Moskvin’s conviction, issued identical warnings to the Novokuybyshevsk community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to the Samara LRO, as its head organisation, advising them that any form of extremist activity was prohibited on pain of liquidation. The Samara LRO replied to the regional prosecutor that Mr   Moskvin was not among its members and that the Novokuybyshevsk community, being an unregistered religious group within the meaning of the Religions Act, was not a structural division of the LRO. No reply was received to their submission. 4.     On 22 January 2014 the Samara Regional police department decided to inspect the premises rented by the Samara LRO at the local community centre for the purpose of “collecting additional information [allowing the prosecutor] to decide on the institution of criminal proceedings”. The police were instructed to seize all objects and documents “relevant to the illegal activity”. On the same date, according to the applicants, the rented premises were visited by the police officers, identifying themselves as an “electricity inspection”. They entered the premises and visited a cloakroom, among others. Some four hours later they returned without disguise and carried out the inspection, proceeding straight to the cloakroom, where they seized religious literature and, in particular, several copies of the books that had been declared extremist by the Rostov Regional Court on 11   September 2009. Following the inspection the Samara LRO was charged with unlawful storage of extremist material under the same provision of the Administrative Offences Code. On 7 March 2014 the Sovetskiy District Court of Samara found it guilty as charged and fined it RUB 50,000. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Samara Regional Court on 17 April 2014. 5.     On 22 April 2014 the Samara Regional prosecutor asked the Samara Regional Court to declare the Samara LRO to be an extremist organisation and to liquidate it. The prosecutor cited the Mr Moskvin’s and the Samara LRO’s convictions of the storage of extremist materials. At the same time as lodging a liquidation claim, the regional prosecutor, by its own authority, ordered a suspension of the Samara LRO’s activities on account of their extremist character. 6.     The Samara LRO objected to the prosecutor’s claim, by asserting that the facts of storage of extremist literature were wrongly imputed to it, since Mr Moskvin did not belong to the Samara LRO and that the Novokuybyshevsk Jehovah’s Witnesses community operated as an independent religious group. 7.     The Regional Court dismissed the Samara LRO’s arguments as an attempt to impeach the findings of the Novokuybyshevskiy Town Court and the Sovetskiy District Court. With reference to the final decisions by those courts, on 29 May 2014 the Regional Court held that the Samara LRO’s administrative conviction under Article 20.29 within twelve months after the prosecutor had given his anti-extremism warning, constituted a sufficient ground to declare it an extremist organization, to liquidate it and to confiscate its property. 8.     On 12 November 2014 the Supreme Court examined and dismissed the appeal by the Samara LRO in a summary fashion. B.     Criminal prosecution of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses (application no.   24622/16) 9.     The applicants are sixteen individual Jehovah’s Witnesses from Taganrog and Rostov-on-Don. 10.     On 5 August 2011 the South Federal Circuit police opened criminal proceedings under Article 282-2 § 1 of the Criminal Code for “performing organisational activities aimed at resuming and maintaining illegal activities” of the Taganrog local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the Taganrog LRO”) which had been liquidated and banned by the Rostov Regional Court on 11 September 2009 (for details, see Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , no. 32401/10) . 11.     On 4 February 2012 another criminal case under the same provison was opened against the applicants Mr   and   Ms   Goncharovy, Mr and Ms   Kravchenko, Mr Sergey Trotsyuk, Mr   Moiseenko, Mr   Shchekalev, Mr   Voloshchuk, Mr Minasyan and Mr   Kruglikov as well as against Ms   K.G. (who is not the applicant in the present case) and “unidentified persons” for membership of the “extremist organisation” which the Taganrog LRO was described to be. 12.     On 30 May 2012 another criminal case was opened under Article   150 § 4 of the Criminal Code (“involving a minor in a criminal group”) against the applicants Mr   Nikolay Trotsyuk, Mr Baklushin, Mr   Koptev and Mr Skvortsov, the elders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community in Taganrog. The decision on the institution of criminal proceedings stated that they had lured the applicant Mr Kruglikov, who was sixteen years old at the relevant time, and a ten-year-old N.P. into the “organised extremist criminal group congregation Vostochnoye of the Tanganrog LRO”, “assigning them to preaching activities and distribution of literature, as well as to providing technical assistance to the elders in organisation of the meetings.” 13.     On an unspecified date all criminal proceedings against the applicants were joined into one criminal case and the applicants were required to give an undertaking not to leave the place of their residence. 14.     On 5 April 2013 a deputy Prosecutor General approved the bill of indictment and submitted the case to the Taganrog City Court for trial. The first conviction was pronounced on 29 July 2014 but was later quashed on appeal. 15.     The second trial opened on 22 January 2015. The applicants pleaded not guilty. They put forward the following arguments in their defence: (i)   the activity of the Taganrog LRO could not have been resumed after the judgment banning and liquidating the organisation; (ii) that judgment did not concern any other legal entities or individuals apart from the Taganrog LRO and did not affect the applicants’ right to practice their religion which they continued to do as an unregistered religious group; (iii) their services of worship were not extremist, they did not read or discuss any literature banned as extremist; (iv) the elders did not “lure” any minors who had attended the services together with their parents and, according to their testimonies and the statements by their parents, did so voluntarily and enjoyed it. 16.     The trial court dismissed their arguments as an “attempt to evade criminal liability”. By the judgment of 30 November 2015, it held that the applicants Mr Koptev, Mr   Baklushin, Mr   Skvortsov, Mr Nikolay Trotsyuk, being aware of the judgment of the Rostov Regional Court banning the Taganrog LRO, resumed and continued its activities by calling meetings, organising religious events, conscripting new members, including minors, distributing extremist literature, collecting donations, organising preaching and luring other applicants into the organisation. In doing so, they were driven by extremist motives “manifested by [their] expressions debasing human dignity on the basis of religious orientation; inciting hatred, especially for ‘Christendom’; advocating the exclusivity of one religion in relation to another; rejecting medical treatment on religious grounds for people whose life and health are in danger; encouraging citizens to refuse to fulfil legally established civic duties, including performing military service; involving young children and minors in the activity of the organisation”. 17.     The trial court held that the applicants had formed a stable extremist group which had existed from the day the Rostov Regional Court judgment banning the Taganrog LRO became final and which had a common purpose, that of resuming and continuing the banned activities, common organisers, “interchangeable and mutually complementary character of their actions”, and an “illegal income” which Mr Skvortsov, Mr   Baklushin, Mr Nikolay Trotsyuk, Mr   Koptev had obtained “in the form of voluntary donations from citizens which was used for the purposes of extremist activities.” 18.     According to the trial court’s findings, “the criminal activity of the extremist group” consisted in the following: “-     inciting religious discord, and advocating the exclusivity and superiority of a religion by degrading other religions; -     organising recruitment of new members; -     breaking up the family, marriage, and family relationships, alienating people from the family circle because their relatives do not, according to this specific religion, have the correct world view; -     choosing only part-time work in order to devote more time to preaching and service considering the work of the organisation to be of primary importance; -     distributing extremist materials and literature declared extremist by a court, as well as storing them with the intent to mass distribute them and use them in religious services, sermons, and speeches; -     inciting citizens to refuse to fulfil their legally established civic duties by not entering military service, as well as to refuse to fulfil the duties of alternative civil service; -     inciting members of the ‘Vostochnoye’ congregation of the LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘Taganrog’ to reject medical treatment on religious grounds for people whose life and health are in danger, in particular, the transfusion of blood and its components even under grave and life-threatening conditions; -     involving minor children in the activity of the ‘Vostochnoye’ congregation of the LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘Taganrog’, in particular, in the preaching activity, when young or minor children are forced to be in attendance with their parents for discussions at meetings for lengthy periods of time.” 19.     The criminal acts committed by the applicants were defined as organising and taking part in a series of religious events held by the Vostochnoye congregation between 30 April and 15 August 2011 and giving extremist speeches during these meetings. The trial court also found it established that the applicants Mr   Baklushin, Mr Koptev, Mr Skvortsov and Mr Nikolay Trotsyuk “by deceit and by other means” had involved the applicant Mr Kruglikov and another minor, N.P., in the criminal activity, assigning them to preaching, distributing literature and assisting during the meetings. 20.     The Town Court found the applicants Mr   Baklushin, Mr   Koptev, Mr   Skvortsov and Mr Nikolay Trotsyuk guilty of offences under Articles   150   §   4 and 282-2 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The elders were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on five years’ probation and fined RUB 100,000 each. The other applicants were convicted of membership of the extremist religious organisation and fined between RUB   20,000 and 70,000. 21.     The applicants appealed. On 17 March 2016 the Rostov Regional Court corrected an erroneous legal characterisation of the offences in respect of twelve applicants, reduced the amount of their fines and upheld the judgment in the remaining part. 22.     The applicants’ cassation appeals were rejected on 22 December 2016 by the Rostov Regional Court and on 24   April 2017 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. C.     Blocking of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website (application no.   2861/15) 23.     The applicants are ten individual Jehovah’s Witnesses from various Russian regions, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (“the Watchtower New York”) which is the owner of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website (www.jw.org), and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia (“the Administrative Centre”) which is the umbrella organisation for the Jehovah’s Witnesses local and regional religious organisations operating in Russia. 24.     On 7 August 2013 the Tsentralniy District Court in Tver pronounced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website to be extremist on the ground that it contained copies of the brochures What Does the Bible Really Teach? , Draw Close to Jehovah and the book Come Be My Follower , that had been previously declared extremist by the Rostov Regional Court on 11   September 2009. The District Court also referred to the information from the Federal Security Service, according to which the website also contained copies of the brochures How Can Blood Save Your Life? and What Does God Require of Us? , as well as Awake! and The Watchtower magazines, whose distribution permit had been revoked in 2010. The Watchtower New York and the Administrative Centre were not informed about the proceedings. The District Court held that a decision declaring the website extremist in the Russian territory would not affect the rights of the Watchtower New York, making its participation in the proceedings unnecessary. 25.     On 12 September 2013 the applicants became aware of the District Court’s decision from media reports. They filed separate appeals, submitting, in particular, that the decision had affected their rights without giving them an opportunity to take part in the proceedings; that the decision to block the access to the entire website had been excessively broad, because, in addition to the material that had been declared extremist, the website contained religious literature, audio and video records in dozens of languages, and the decision prevented worshippers in Russia from accessing those non-extremist materials. The individual applicants who had physical limitations also complained that the website was the only source of religious materials with special features (such as sign language commentaries or audio recordings for blind users). 26.     On 22 January 2014 the Regional Court examined the appeal by the Watchtower New York and quashed the decision of 7 August 2013. It found, firstly, that the Watchtower New York, as the website’s owner, should have been afforded an opportunity to take part in the proceedings. It further noted that the materials declared extremist were no longer accessible on the website from within the Russian territory. Finally, it held that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of the prosecutor’s request by referring to other materials on the website, and that the reference to the revocation of the publication permit was irrelevant. The Regional Court further held that publication of certain extremist materials was not a ground for declaring the entire website to be extremist. 27.     Unbeknownst to the applicants, on 21 July 2014 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a supervisory review request against the appeal decision with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 2 December 2014 the Supreme Court granted the request for the supervisory review, quashed the appeal decision of the Regional Court of 22   January 2014 and reinstated the decision of the District Court of 7 August 2013 declaring the website extremist. The Watchtower New York was not present at the hearing and learned of the Supreme Court’s decision the next day from media reports. On 29 December 2014 and 9 January 2015 it unsuccessfully requested the Supreme Court to re-open the case. D.     Banning of religious publications 1.     Banning of the book “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom (application no.   28108/14) 28.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Uspenskiy District of the Krasnodar Region (“the Uspenskiy LRO”), the German and US publishers of Jehovah’s Witnesses literature, and three individual Jehovah’s Witnesses from the Krasnodar Region and Nizhniy Novgorod. 29.     On 2 November 2011, the Uspenskiy District prosecutor of the Krasnodar Region asked the Uspenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region to declare extremist the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ book “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom . 30.     It appears that all applicants were allowed to join the proceedings as interested parties. 31.     On 14 February 2012 the prosecutor asked the court to order a psychological linguistic expert study of the book in the Krasnodar Regional Centre for Forensic Studies. On 2 May 2012 the experts produced a report stating that the book did not contain calls to enmity and hatred or any statements degrading the dignity of others. 32.     The prosecutor requested the District Court to order a second study in the Southern Regional Centre for Forensic Studies which was completed on 14 March 2013. The experts concluded that the book contained “indicators of indirectly inciting citizens to refuse to perform lawfully established civic obligations, in particular non-compliance with judicial decisions and government bans conflicting with the principles of the religious teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and statements “capable of creating in the reader a negative perception ... of ministers of traditional Christian denominations”. An Orthodox priest, heard at the request of the prosecutor, was of the view that the book had an extremist character. 33.     On 19 June 2013 the District Court pronounced the book extremist, prohibited its further distribution and ordered its confiscation. In doing so it relied exclusively on the findings in the second expert report and the statements by an Orthodox priest. 34.     All the applicants appealed. On 8 October 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court dismissed their appeals and upheld the judgment in a summary fashion. 2.     Banning of the brochures Good News from God and What You Need to Know About God and His Purpose (application no.   16578/15) 35.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Birobidzan (“the Birobidzhan LRO”) and its chairman. 36.     On 14 October 2013 a military prosecutor in Vladimir asked the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir to pronounce two publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the brochures Good News from God and What You Need to Know About God and His Purpose ) to be extremist. The prosecutor relied on a philological expert study report, according to which the brochures incited religious hatred and advocated superiority of one religion above others. 37.     On 23 October 2013 the Leninskiy District Court granted the prosecutor’s application, relying exclusively on the expert report. The publisher of the brochures or any other representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses were not summoned to the hearings. The judgment became final on 2 December 2013. 38.     In the meantime, a separate application for declaring extremist the brochure Good News from God was lodged before the Birobidzhan Town Court in the Yevreyskiy Region. The applicants and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia participated in these proceedings as interested parties. On 19 August 2013 the Town Court also declared the brochure extremist. The applicants appealed. 39.     On 4 April 2014 the Yevreyskiy Regional Court quashed the judgment of 19 August 2013, finding no grounds to declare the brochure extremist. 40.     On 26 May 2014 the deputy Birobidzhan prosecutor issued an official warning letter to the applicants. With reference to the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir of 23 October 2013 declaring the brochure Good News from God extremist, he advised the applicants to cease the distribution of the brochure. 41.     Having thus become aware of the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court, the applicants appealed against it, requesting the District Court to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal. On 7 August 2014 the District Court dismissed their request, finding that the judgment did not interfere with the applicants’ rights and that they failed to give a valid reason for missing the time-limit for appeal. On 7 October 2014 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld this decision on appeal. E.     Searches in private residences and in a place of worship and seizure of religious literature (application no. 29295/14) 42.     The applicants are the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the town of Kostomuksha in the Karelia Republic (“the Kostomuksha LRO”), its chairman Mr Ogorodnikov and his wife and two members of the Kostomuksha LRO’s executive board, Mr Stepanov and Ms   Samchenko. 43.     The individual applicants and other members of the Kostomuksha LRO held their religious service at a place of worship, known as Kingdom Hall, located in non-residential premises in Kostomuksha belonging to the applicant Mr   Ogorodnikov. 44.     On 7 November 2012 the head of the Karelian Regional Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSS”) ordered an inspection of the Kingdom Hall for the purpose of seizing the religious literature and examining it for indications of extremism. The following justification for the inspection was given: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious organisation whose activities are aimed at recruiting more followers and at exercising psychological influence on the local population in order to acquire material goods in the form of real property (apartments and homes). Followers in the Kostomuksha cell of Jehovah’s Witnesses recruit city residents into their community by going from apartment to apartment (each follower is responsible for his own section of the city) and spreading the idea that people must serve ‘Jehovah’ God because the ‘end of the world’, the ‘Apocalypse’, is coming soon. The followers use their skills in psychological, religious, and recruiting techniques to draw residents of the city of Kostomuksha into their religious organisation. Meetings of followers of the Kostomuksha cell of Jehovah’s Witnesses are held in a so-called ‘Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses’, where literature that might contain extremist material is stored. In order to teach this pseudo-religion to followers and parishioners, religious literature is used that has been entered in the list of extremist materials ..., publication and distribution of which is banned in Russia. What Does the Bible Really Teach? .... It has been established that this literature contains materials aimed at inciting hatred or enmity based on a person’s attitude toward religion. Taking into account that the activity of said religious organisation is destructive and poses a threat to society, and that there have been incidents of extremist religious literature that was stored at the “Kingdom Hall” being distributed to residents of the Kostomuksha urban district, it is necessary to conduct the operational-search activity “Inspection of premises, buildings, structures, land plots, and vehicles” in said premises. The operational-search activity is necessary in order to seize literature that can then be assigned for linguistic study to determine whether it has extremist content.” 45.     On the following day the deputy president of the Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic authorised inspections in Mr and Ms Ogorodnikov’s and Mr Stepanov’s flats where they allegedly kept extremist religious literature. 46.     On 23 November 2013 FSS officers, accompanied by the police, visited the homes of Mr and Ms Ogorodnikovy and Mr Stepanov. The applicants were prohibited from leaving the premises for the duration of the inspections. The FSS officers seized all religious literature they had found at their homes, including Bibles, magazines and books, and other personal items, such as computers, video-recordings and paper notebooks. The FSS officers also forced the applicant Mr Stepanov to hand them the keys to Kingdom Hall threatening to break open the door if he refused. After obtaining the keys the FSS officers proceeded to Kingdom Hall where they seized over five hundred items of religious literature, including Bibles. The applicant Ms Samchenko was present during the inspection and the FSS officers also forced her to give them access to the premises. The items seized during the inspection in the Kingdom Hall were later returned to the applicants, unlike the personal items taken from the homes of the applicants Mr Ogorodnikov and Mr   Stepanov. 47.     The applicants asked the Supreme Court to declare the actions of the FSS and the police officers unlawful, relying on Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention and the equivalent guarantees of the Russian Constitution. On 21 January 2013 the Regional Supreme Court rejected the complaint. It held that that the inspection had been aimed at collecting sufficient evidence against the applicants Mr Ogorodnikov and Mr Stepanov which was necessary for the institution of criminal proceedings. It was therefore were not amenable to a review in civil procedure but rather should have been examined in criminal proceedings. On 6   March 2013 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld that decision. 48.     On 29 August 2013 the applicants lodged separate complaints under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedural Code with the the Kostomuksha Town Court of the Karelia Republic challenging the lawfulness of the inspections. On 3   September 2013 the Town Court dismissed their complaints in a summary fashion, finding that the inspections had been carried out in accordance with the Operational-Search Activities Act. On 17   October 2013 the Regional Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeals. F.     Disruption of a service of worship (application no. 35190/14) 49.     The six individual applicants live in the Primorskiy Region and belong to the same congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 50.     In the evening of 26 March 2013 the applicants, together with fellow believers, gathered in the premises rented from a municipal institution Pogranichniy Dom Ofitserov to hold the Memorial of the Death of Jesus Christ , a special annual service deemed as the most important religious event of the year. 51.     The service began at 8:30 p.m. Approximately 40 persons, including young children, were in attendance. About ten minutes into the service a deputy prosecutor of the Pogranicnhniy District of the Primorskiy Region, accompanied by the police and an unidentified law-enforcement officer in plain clothes, entered the premises. They ordered the applicant Mr   Mashinskiy to stop the service and asked everyone to leave the premises, stating that the service was illegal, since it was held outside a religious building without prior notification. The service was discontinued and the audience was vacated the premises. 52.     On 15 May 2013 the applicants lodged a claim with the Ussuriyskiy District Court of the Primorskiy Region challenging the lawfulness of the police actions in disrupting the religious meeting. 53.     On 18 June 2013 the District Court rejected their claim. It classified the religious service as a public gathering requiring a prior notice to the authorities. It also held that “regardless of the intent of the participants in the event, the danger still exists that public order could be violated and thus cause moral or physical harm to the health of citizens. This requires needed supervision on the part of agencies of authority, which includes taking measures for insuring that a public event be conducted peacefully.” The District Court found that the discontinuation of the religious service by the police had been lawful. On 24 October 2013 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 54.     For various aspects of the relevant domestic law and practice, see Krupko and Others v.   Russia , no. 26587/07, §§   20-28, 26   June 2014; Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia , no.   302/02, §§   69-84, 10   June 2010; Kimlya and Others v. Russia , nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, §§   46-64, ECHR 2009. 55 .     On 21 April 2010 the Constitutional Court gave judgment no.   10-P concerning the exercise of the right to appeal by persons who were not parties to the proceedings at first instance. It reaffirmed its constant position (see judgment no. 20-P of 2 July 1998 and judgment no. 1-P of 20   February 2006) that the examination of a claim in the absence of persons whose rights and obligations may be affected diminishes their right to the judicial protection and undermines the principles of fairness and adversarial nature of the proceedings. The judicial proceedings would not be fair within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention if the court determines civil rights and obligations of a person who was not a party to the proceedings. Accordingly, if a judicial decision breached the rights or freedoms of, or imposed additional obligations on, the person who was not a party to the proceedings, such person shall have the right to submit an appeal which must be considered by the appeal court (paragraph 3.1). COMPLAINTS 56.     All the applicants complain under Article   9 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles   10, 11 and 14, about a violation of their right to freedom of religion and about discriminatory treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses on account of their faith. 57.     Invoking Article   10 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   9, the applicants complain that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature and their website were declared extremist material, banned in Russia and that the literature was confiscated. 58.     The applicants in case no.   28108/14 complain under Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles   6, 9 and 10 that the courts grounded their decision to ban the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature on the witness statement by a Russian Orthodox priest. 59.     The applicants also complain under Article   6: (i)     in case no.   2861/15, that the applicant Watchtower New York was not duly notified of the supervisory review hearing and deprived of the opportunity to present its position to the Supreme Court; (ii)     in case no.   16578/15, that the appeal court refused to consider their appeals against the decision issued in the ex parte proceedings. 60.     The applicants in case no.   29295/14 also complain under Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles   9, 10 and 14, about an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their home and seizure of their chattel. They also complain under Article   13 of the Convention, taken together with Article   8, about the absence of an effective remedy for their complaints about unlawful searches of their homes and place of worship.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of all the applicants, was there a violation of Article   9 of the Convention, taken on its own or in conjunction with Article   14?   2.     As regards the Samara LRO and the individual applicants in case no.   15962/15, was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article   9, taken on its own or in conjunction with Article   14, on account of the liquidation of the religious organisation and the banning of its activities?   3.     As regards the applicants in case no.   24622/16 who were sentenced for organising, or participating in, the “extremist religious organisation”, was there a violation of Article   9 or Article   11 of the Convention, taken on their own or in conjunction with Article   14?   4.     Did the decisions pronouncing the religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist material, confiscating it and banning it from circulation in Russia, and blocking access to the website containing such literature, amount to an interference with the rights of individual applicants, guaranteed under Articles   9 and 10 of the Convention (compare Cengiz and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   48226/10 and 14027/11, §§   47-58, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?   5.     As regards the applicants in cases nos.   28108/14, 2861/15 and 16578/15, was there a violation of Article   10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article   9, taken on its own or in conjunction with Article   14, on account of the decisions pronouncing the religious literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist material, confiscating it and banning it from circulation in Russia, as well as declaring extremist the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ web-site and blocking access to it? In particular, did any of the publications or materials contain calls to violence or hate speech based on religious intolerance (see Gündüz v.   Turkey , no.   35071/97, ECHR   2003 ‑ XI)? Did the domestic courts clearly identify the offending passages and attribute legal characterisation to them?   6.     As regards the applicants in case no.   29295/14 whose premises were searched, was there a violation of Article   8 of the Convention, taken on its own or in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for that measure and was it proportionate to a legitimate aim? Also, did the applicants have an effective remedy for their complaint about the unlawful searches of their homes and place of worship, as required by Article   13 of the Convention, taken together with Article   8 (see   Avanesyan v.   Russia , no.   41152/06, §§   25-36, 18   September 2014)?   7.     In respect of the applicants who participated in the religious event that was disrupted by of the police (application no.   35190/14), was there a violation of Articles   9 and 11 of the Convention?   8.     Was the Watchtower New York (the applicant in case no.   2861/15) afforded an opportunity to participate effectively in the supervisory proceedings before the Supreme Court of Russia? In particular, had it been notified properly and in a timely fashion about the date and place of the supervisory hearing as required by Article   6 of the Convention and did the Supreme Court verify the receipt of notification (see Gankin and Others v.   Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§   33-44, 31   May 2016)?   9.     As regards case no. 16578/15, did the judgment of the Leninskiy District Court dated 23   October 2013 determine the applicants’ civil rights and obligations? On the assumption that it did, was there a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine their appeals (see the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 10-P of 21   April 2010, cited in paragraph   55 in the Statement of Facts)?   10.     As regards the applicants in case no.   28108/14, was there a violation of Article   14, taken in conjunction with Articles   6, 9 and 10 of the Convention, on account of the fact that one of the two main grounds on which the court rested the decision was the witness statement by a Russian Orthodox priest (compare Paraskeva Todorova v.   Bulgaria , no.   37193/07, §§   35-46, 25   March 2010, and E.B. v.   France [GC], no.   43546/02, §   80, 22   January 2008)?   Appendix No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   15962/15 31/03/2015 SAMARA Local religious organisation Samara   Pavel Sergeyevich Moskvin 16/08/1983 Balakovo   Darya Leonidovna Zagoskina 22/10/1983 Samara   Stanislav Viktorovich Maydanyuk 07/04/1989 Samara   Yelena Anatolyevna Aleshina 08/03/1967 Samara   Tatyana Vitalyevna Kupriyanova 16/04/1977 Samara   Sergey Ivanovich Polosenko 06/07/1968 Samara     24622/16 28/04/2016 Nikolay Vladimirovich TROTSYUK 09/07/1954 Taganrog   Yuriy Aleksandrovich Baklushin 21/12/1983 Taganrog   Kirill Igorevich Chetverikov 30/11/1988 Taganrog   Kirill Mikhaylovich Kravchenko 04/06/1982 Rostov-on-Don   Vladislav Vitalyevich Kruglikov 28/04/1994 Taganrog   Karen Yuryevich Minasyan 05/06/1986 Taganrog   Vladimir Pavlovich Moiseenko 07/10/1970 Taganrog   Vyacheslav Valeryevich Shchekalev 18/03/1977 Taganrog   Aleksandr Viktorovich Skvortsov 11/06/1962 Taganrog   Sergey Nikolaevich Trotsyuk 21/10/1981 Taganrog   Roman Vladimirovich Voloshchuk 12/12/1983 Taganrog   Andrey Viktorovich Goncharov 17/07/1973 Taganrog   Oxana Nikolaevna Goncharova 07/03/1979 Taganrog   Alexey Alekseyevich Koptev 16/04/1944 Taganrog   Vladimir Viktorovich Kozhukhov 25/10/1965 Taganrog Tatiana Vladimirovna Kravchenko 17/03/1962 Taganrog     2861/15 14/01/2015 Oleg Aleksandrovich KRAVCHUK 29/06/1977 Uryupinsk   Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses In Russia St Petersburg   Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York New York, NY, USA   Galina Leonidovna Alekseyeva 09/07/1952 Chelyabinsk   Viktor Vasilyevich Berchatov 12/11/1947 Chelyabinsk   Nellya Fedorovna Butina 31/05/1970 Chelyabinsk   Mindiyamal Mansurovna Khudaygulova 01/01/1960 Chelyabinsk Igor Vladimirovich Markin 27/08/1987 Chelyabinsk   Aleksey Shishov 12/08/1973 Tver   Aleksandr Bukhnin 21/02/1968 Moscow   Vitaliy Sarkisov 09/06/1957 Torzhok Sergey Shamin 13/10/1972 Yaroslavl     28108/14 04/04/2014 Aleksey Nikolayevich NOVIKOV 20/03/1971 Maryino, the Krasnodar Region   Anatoliy Ivanovich Baylo 06/05/1958 Volnoye, the Krasnodar Region   Maksim Nikolayevich Kalinin 10/04/1979 Nizhniy Novgorod   Jehovah’s Witnesses of Uspenskiy District Volnoye, the Krasnodar Region   Watch Tower Bible Pennsylvania Brooklyn, NY, USA   Wachtturm Bibel Der Zeugen Jehovas Selters, Germany     16578/15 07/04/2015 Alam Abdulaziz Ogly ALIYEV 14/01/1963 Birobidzhan   LRO Birobidzhan Birobidhzan     29295/14 11/04/2014 Andrey Pavlovich OGORODNIKOV 20/10/1965 Kostomuksha   Kostomuksha LRO Kostomuksha   Liudmila Nikolayevna Ogorodnikova 15/03/1972 Kostomuksha   Pavel Ivanovich Stepanov 31/08/1971 Kostomuksha   Olga Mikhaylovna Samchenko 20/02/1961 Kostomuksha     35190/14 22/04/2014 Pavel Vasilyevich MASHINSKIY 04/03/1961 Ussuriysk   Klavdiya Vladimirovna Mashinskaya 14/08/1965 Ussuriysk   Lyubov Viktorovna Voronina 21/02/1980 Novopokrovka   Dmitriy Yuryevich Chernyuk 15/10/1982 Ussuriysk   Olesya Fedorovna Chernyuk 06/08/1984 Ussuriysk   Anna Germanovna Savchenko 17/02/1988 Ussuriysk