CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B480138 { width:266.49pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB176A172 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   15 December 2009   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3007/06 by Yuriy SAMODUROV and Lyudmila VASILOVSKAYA against Russia lodged on 13 December 2005 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the conviction of the applicants for having organised the “Caution, religion!” exhibition compatible with their right to freedom of expression protected under Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     As regards the “prescribed by law” test in paragraph 2 of Article 10, was it foreseeable for the applicants that the provisions of Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code which were designed to protect individuals against discrimination on account of their race, religion and other status would be interpreted in the applicants’ case as a “blasphemy law” or a law restricting criticism of religion?   3.     What provisions of the Russian law protect the religion and individual religious feelings against expression which claims to be of an artistic nature and what is the scope of that protection? Did the exhibition limit or inhibit Orthodox Christians in manifesting their religion or otherwise interfere with their rights under Article 9 of the Convention?   4.     Having regard to the decision not to prosecute the individuals who destroyed and defaced the exhibits in the “Caution, religion!” exhibition, did the State comply with its duty to take positive measures to secure the effective exercise of freedom of expression, as required by Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no. 23144/93, §§   42-46, ECHR 2000-III, and Fuentes Bobo v. Spain , no.   39293/98, § 38, 29 February 2000)?