CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s62C3E828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6793D508 { width:138.52%; border-collapse:collapse } .sFEBE2901 { width:32.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s48313F44 { width:16.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31C34EAA { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s40283D95 { width:20.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFE98CC46 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5CC3AEE7 { width:32.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s665050E2 { width:16.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1C0B717F { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s81953AF9 { width:20.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1675B0A5 { width:17.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 5 September 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78909/17 UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX PARISH OF THE HOLY TRINITY CHURCH IN NOGINSK AND OTHERS against Russia lodged on 5 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the present case the applicants are two religious organisations and a priest, Mr Starina, representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate in Russia. Mr Starina owned a land plot containing a residential building. Using his own money and donations of his religious community, in 2015 he erected a building next to it which was used for worship (“the church”). After a Russian Orthodox priest and local residents complained about the “non-traditional” character of the church, the town hall sought a court order for its demolition. The court appointed an expert who determined that the building could be used both as residential building and as a place of worship, that it sat on lawfully owned land, that it had been built in compliance with technical and construction rules and that it was safe. The domestic courts held that, despite being the lawful owner of the land, the applicant could only build on it residential buildings or auxiliary constructions and ordered him to demolish the church.     QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the order to demolish the church, the only place of worship in the region which had already been used for some time, amount to discrimination against the applicants in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 9? Did the domestic courts consider the consequences of the demolition for local believers and explain the difference in treatment between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate in their decisions? Was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the measure applied to the applicants and the aim sought to be realised? To what extent did the Russian Orthodox priest’s complaint influence the town hall’s decision to seek a court order for demolition? Did the domestic courts analyse this issue in their decisions? 2.     Did the order to demolish the church amount to discrimination against the applicants contrary to Article 14 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the measure applied to the applicants and the aim sought to be realised? 3.     The Government are invited to submit documents describing cases in which the authorities issued a demolition order against any building of the Russian Orthodox Church in a situation analogous or relevantly similar to the present one.     APPENDIX   Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Nationality Place of residence Representative PRAVOSLAVNA GROMADA SVYATO-TROYITSKOGO KHRAMU MISTA NOGINSK   30/08/1995 Russian Noginsk S.A. Zayets PRAVOSLAVNA GROADA SESTER MYLOSERDYA I BLAGODIYNOSTI MISTA NOGINSK   04/11/1995 Russian Noginsk S.A. Zayets Valentyn Yegorovych STARYNA   13/12/1943 Russian Noginsk S.A. Zayets