CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 21 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 69421/17 UPRAVLINNYA KRYMSKOYI YEPARKHIYI UKRAYINSKOYI PRAVOSLAVNOYI TSERKVY against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged limitations by the Russian authorities of the applicants’ right to freedom of religion in Crimea, after the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over the peninsula in 2014. All the applications, except for application no. 11890/21, were lodged by religious organisations located in Crimea, which are registered in Ukraine. Five of them, namely applications nos. 69421/17, 420/19, 22986/19, 31609/19, 33585/20 were lodged by the Crimean branch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. The applicant alleges that after asserting their jurisdiction in Crimea in 2014 the Russian Government initiated a process of elimination of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Crimea. Relying on Article 9 of the Convention, the applicant alleges numerous violations of its right to freedom of religion in Crimea. The applicant argues, in particular, that the obligation to undergo the procedure of re-registration under Russian law in Crimea amounts to an interference with its right to freedom of religion which does not pursue a legitimate aim and which is not proportionate. The applicant further states that deprivation of its right to use its premises, seizure of property and attempts to demolish the Church’ building fell short of the guarantees set forth in this Article. The remaining two applications, nos. 17009/21 and 11890/21 were lodged by a local religious organisation, namely the Muslim Community “Alushta” ( місцева релігійна організація Мусульманська община «Алушта» ), and its imam respectively. The applicants allege that in Crimea there is an association of Islamic religious organisations, namely Religious Board of the Muslims   of Crimea (Духовне управління мусульман Криму ), which is favourable to the Russian authorities in Crimea and which cooperates with them. They submit that the Muslim Community “Alushta” refused to be a part of that association and continues to operate as an independent Islamic organisation in Crimea, and that it complied with the requirement of re ‑ registration under Russian law. The applicants in these two applications allege ongoing violations in respect of independent Islamic organisations on the territory of Crimea and an official tolerance on the part of the Russian authorities. In particular, they allege that in 2019 the Muslim Community “Alushta” was deprived of its right to use the Mosque in Alushta, Crimea, which was subsequently transferred to the Religious Board of the Muslims of Crimea. They also complain that   the Russian authorities have violated their rights to freedom of religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention, by requiring them to become affiliated to the Religious Board of Muslims   of Crimea. Additionally, they allege an interference by the latter with the activity of independent Islamic organisations in Crimea. They further complain that ordering an imam to pay a fine for unlawfully carrying out religious activity in the Mosque amounts to an interference with their right to freedom of religion, contrary to this Article. Finally, the applicants in all applications, except for application no.   31609/19, complain that their communities are treated less favourably than other religious organisations in Crimea, namely the organisations affiliated to the Religious Board of Muslims of Crimea as regards applications nos. 17009/21 and 11890/21, and the Russian Orthodox Church as regards applications nos. 69421/17, 420/19, 22986/19, 33585/20. In this connection the applicants argue that they have been subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion, contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2?   3.     Have the applicants, who relied on Article 14 of the Convention, suffered discriminatory treatment in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to that provision, taken in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?     APPENDIX   List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Registration/Birth Place of Registration/Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 69421/17 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy v. Russia 10/09/2017 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy 1996 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 2. 420/19 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy v. Russia 29/12/2018 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy 1996 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 3. 22986/19 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy v. Russia 11/04/2019 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy 1996 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 4. 31609/19 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy v. Russia 04/04/2019 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy 1996 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 5. 33585/20 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy v. Russia 06/08/2020 Upravlinnya Krymskoyi Yeparkhiyi Ukrayinskoyi Pravoslavnoyi Tserkvy 1996 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 6. 11890/21 Ashyrov v. Russia 13/02/2021 Yusuf Serverovych ASHYROV 1964 Alushta Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 7. 17009/21 Mistseva religiyna organizatsiya Musulmanska obshchyna Alushta v. Russia 15/03/2021 Mistseva religiyna organizatsiya Musulmanska obshchyna Alushta 1993 Alushta Russian Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS