CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 96 April 2007 Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia - 18147/02 Judgment 5.4.2007 [Section I] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of association Bad-faith denial of re-registration, resulting in the applicant association’s loss of legal status:   Facts :The applicant is a religious association with the status of a legal entity and was officially registered in 1994. In 1997 the Religions Act entered into force, obliging all religious associations which previously had been granted the status of a legal entity to bring their articles   of association into conformity with the Act and to re-apply for registration before the end of 2000. The applicant applied 11 times for re‑registration to the Moscow Justice Department between 1998 and 2005. On several occasions the applications were not processed on the ground that a complete set of documents had not been provided. The competent district court later gave specific reasons for the refusal, namely that the applicant had failed to produce originals of their charter and other documents. It further held that the book submitted by the applicant did not provide sufficient information on the basic tenets of Scientology’s creed and practice. Four applications were left unexamined on the ground that the time-limit for re-registration had expired. In the meantime, the district court held that the Justice’s Department refusals to re-register the applicant had been unlawful and inconsistent with international standards of law. It concluded that the Justice Department had, in essence, used subterfuge to avoid re-registration of the applicant and pointed out that an association with no status as a legal entity was prevented from renting premises for religious ceremonies and worship, receiving and disseminating religious literature or holding a bank account. The court’s decision became binding and enforceable in   December 2000. However, the Justice Department refused to comply with it and, in 2001 it was quashed by way of supervisory review. In 2003 the applicant filed a further complaint against the Justice Department on account of its persistent refusal to re-register the association. Ultimately, the courts found that the refusal to examine the applicant’s amended charter had had no lawful basis and the Justice Department was ordered to re-examine the application for re-registration. Most recently, the Justice Department refused the applicant’s last application on a new ground, notably the failure to produce a document proving the applicant’s presence in Moscow for at least fifteen years. Law : There had been interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of association in that it had not been re-registered and was restricted in exercising the full range of its religious activities. The Justice Department had refused to process four applications for re-registration on account of the applicant’s alleged failure to submit a complete set of documents. The Department had not specified what information or document had been missing, claiming that it had not been competent to do so. Not only had that approach been inconsistent; it had also prevented the applicant from being able to amend their application and re-submit it. Furthermore, that approach had run counter to domestic law which required any refusal to be justified. Consequently, the Justice Department had acted in an arbitrary manner and the refusals had not been “in accordance with the law”. The reasons specified by the district court, namely the applicant’s failure to produce originals of certain documents, had had no foundation in law, since neither the Religions Act nor any other regulatory document contained that requirement. Moreover, the requirement to enclose originals with each application would have been excessively difficult, even impossible, given that the Justice Department was under no legal obligation to return the documents enclosed with applications. In any case, the Justice Department did have in its possession the originals at issue which had never been returned since their inclusion in the first application for re-registration.Therefore, the district court’s decision that the applicant had been responsible for not providing adequate documentation had no factual or legal basis. Furthermore, the court had not explained why the book submitted by the applicant had not contained sufficient information on the basic creed tenets and practices of Scientology, and therefore had failed in its task to clarify the applicable legal requirements and give the applicant clear instructions on how to prepare a complete and adequate application. As regards the applicant’s failure to secure re-registration within the established time-limit, it had been a direct consequence of arbitrary rejection of its earlier applications by the Justice Department. Finally, the latest requirement to produce the document showing the applicant’s fifteen-year presence in Moscow had also been unlawful, as the Constitutional Court had ruled that no such document should be required from organisations which had existed before the entry into force of the Religions Act in 1997, which was the applicant’s case. Since it had not been proven that the applicant had breached domestic law or any regulation governing their associative life and religious activities during their three years’ existence, the reasons given to deny re-registration had had no legal basis. The authorities had not acted in good faith and had neglected their duty to be neutral and impartial vis-à-vis the applicant’s religious community. Conclusion : violation of Article   11 read in the light of Article   9. Article   41 – EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes