CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mai 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 May 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3215/18 GLAZOV LRO and others against Russia lodged on 15 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are 395 local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, their chairpersons and other members. They complain about the allegedly discriminatory judgment of the Supreme Court of Russia of 20   April 2017 declaring all of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organisations in Russia extremist, ordering their liquidation, banning their religious activities and confiscation of their property (see, for details, application no. 10188/17 Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and Kalin v.   Russia , communicated on 1 December 2017). The applicants also complain about the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their effective participation in the proceedings. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, taken on their own or in conjunction with Article 14, on account of the decision to liquidate the applicant organisations and to ban their activities?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the decision to confiscate the property of the applicant organisations?   3.     Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicants’ request to join the proceedings as an interested party and the refusal to examine their appeals against the Supreme Court’s judgment declaring the religious organisations extremist?