Last Updated on January 31, 2023 by LawEuro
The cases concern the disruption of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious meetings.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NABOKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 19428/11 and 6 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nabokikh and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the seven applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals whose details are listed in the appendices (“the applicants”) and who were represented by a team of lawyers led by Mr Petr Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the case by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 10 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The cases concern the disruption of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious meetings. The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses who organised or participated in religious assemblies held on the premises – buildings or plots of land – which they owned or rented specifically for that purpose, whether in their own name or on behalf of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, a national organisation of Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses.
2. In all cases, the religious assemblies were disrupted by the police who arrived at the premises during the events. In some cases, the police disrupted the religious meetings on the basis that the meetings were conducted without prior notification. The police ordered the meetings to stop or stayed on the premises to take photos and make video recording of the events, checked the documents and questioned the organisers and participants. The applicants in applications nos. 19428/11 and 73036/11 were found liable for breaching the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20.2(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences. They had allegedly failed to notify the authorities of a religious event being held on the premises which were not specifically allocated for holding religious events.
3. In other cases, the police disrupted the religious assemblies in order to search the premises where they were being held. The searches had been ordered in the framework of criminal proceedings against unidentified individuals suspected of involvement in extremist activities. The warrants did not explain why the prayer halls were to be searched and stated that “evidence relevant to the criminal case” might be found there. In the case of Mr Khilyuta and eight other applicants from Dubna, the police searched the premises allegedly because they had received information about missing persons or fugitives from justice who could be present among the attendees.
4. When the police arrived to carry out the searches, the applicants unsuccessfully pleaded with them to postpone the search until after the end of the religious services. During the searches the police seized the religious literature belonging to the applicants and checked their identity documents. The searches lasted for several hours. According to the applicants in applications nos. 44363/11, 78114/11 and 5571/12 the police were violent against some of the applicants and kept them on the premises throughout the night.
5. All applicants complained to the domestic courts about the insufficient grounds and intrusive nature of the searches. The courts dismissed the complaints, finding that the searches were conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of domestic law (see Appendix I for the dates of final decisions).
6. Relying on Articles 9 and 11, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the disruption of their religious meetings by the authorities, the investigative measures, and the administrative convictions had had no basis in the Russian law and had not been necessary in a democratic society. Some of the applicants also referred to Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
9. The disruption of a religious assembly by the authorities and sanctioning of the applicants for holding “unauthorised” religious events amounts to “interference by a public authority” with the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The Court will consider these complaints from the standpoint of Article 9 of the Convention (see Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, § 53, 11 January 2007, and Boychev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77185/01, §§ 45-47, 27 January 2011).
10. On the allegedly unlawful nature of events which had not been notified to the authorities, the Court has previously noted the consistent case‑law of Russia’s Supreme Court that religious meetings, even those conducted on rented premises, did not require any prior authorisation from, or notice to, the authorities (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above, § 70, and Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 54, 26 June 2014). Accordingly, to the extent that the applicants in applications nos. 19428/11 and 73036/11 were sanctioned for failure to submit such a notification, their conviction did not have a clear and foreseeable legal basis and was not “prescribed by law”.
11. Furthermore, it is undisputed that all religious assemblies were peaceful in their nature and were not likely to cause any disturbance or danger to the public order. Their disruption by the police, even if the authorities genuinely believed that lack of advance notice rendered them illegal, did not pursue a “pressing social need” and therefore not “necessary in a democratic society” (see Krupko and Others, cited above, § 56).
12. On the second justification relating to the necessity to search the premises where meetings were being held, the Court finds that the search warrants had been couched in extremely broad terms (see, mutatis mutandis, Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 127, 4 February 2020, with further references). They did not specify why the particular premises were targeted, what it was that the police expected to find there and what relevant and sufficient reasons justified the need to conduct the search. Similarly, in the Dubna case concerning an alleged fugitive from justice, the police report did not identify the person or persons the police were looking for or the nature of that person’s or those persons’ connection with the applicants’ religious groups and did not give any relevant and sufficient reasons for believing that that person or those persons would be present during the assembly.
13. Furthermore, the excessively broad terms of the search warrants also gave the police unrestricted discretion in scheduling the searches, allowing them to interrupt the religious events. The Government did not explain what considerations of urgency prevented the police from waiting until a service of worship had been finished. The domestic courts considering the applicants’ complaints about the intrusive nature of the searches examined solely the authorities’ formal compliance with the applicable procedural requirements of the domestic law, without addressing in any way the requirements of necessity and proportionality (see Boychev and Others, cited above, §§ 48‑53, and, mutatis mutandis, Kruglov and Others, cited above, § 130).
14. The above considerations are sufficient to conclude that there was no “pressing social need” to disrupt the religious gatherings, and the interference with the applicants’ right to manifest their religion was not “necessary in a democratic society”.
15. There has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.
3. OTHER COMPLAINTS
16. The applicants also complained under Articles 8, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 9 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the above complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
4. Remaining complaints
17. Some applicants (applications nos. 44363/11, 78114/11 and 5571/12) also complained, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been subjected to inhuman treatment during the searches. The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. The applicants claimed the amount of fines they had paid in respect of the pecuniary damage and also various sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage, set out in Appendix II. They claimed a total of 46,266 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses, and additional sums of money in respect of “punitive damages”.
19. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive.
20. The Court awards the applicants the amounts claimed in respect of pecuniary damage, and also EUR 7,500 or such amounts as were actually claimed to each of the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see Appendix II). As regards costs and expenses, the Court awards EUR 5,000 jointly to all applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. Lastly, it rejects the claims for punitive damages in accordance with its well-established practice (see the cases cited in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 97, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
21. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 9 of the Convention about the disruption of religious meetings admissible and the complaints about the alleged ill-treatment inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) the amounts as claimed in respect of pecuniary damage, as set out in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) jointly to all applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides
Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX I: LIST OF APPLICANTS, DATE, PLACE AND REASON FOR THE INTERRUPTION OF THE RELIGIOUS MEETINGS
| Name | Date and place of the event | Reason for the interruption and final judicial decision |
| Nabokikh and Others v. Russia, no. 19428/11 | ||
| Aleksandr Borisovich NABOKIKH | 16/07/2010
Kirov |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
04/10/2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov, Kirov Region |
| Aleksandr Vasilyevich AKHMATOV | 05/06/2010
Volgodonsk |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
28/09/2010 the Volgodonsk District Court, Rostov Region |
| Vyacheslav Viktorovich TUMAKOV | 23-24/07/2010
Prokhladnyy |
Meetings conducted without prior notification 22/09/2010 the Georgiyevsk Town Court, Stavropol Region |
| Aleksey Georgievich TSARKOV | 02-03/07/2010
Vladimir |
Meetings conducted without prior notification
26/11/2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir, Vladimir Region |
| Vasim Yusupovich ABLAYEV | 30/07/2010
Ufa |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
17/11/2010 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa, Bashkortostan Republic |
| Martynenko and Others v. Russia, no. 44363/11 | ||
| All the applicants | 10/08/2010
Yoshkar-Ola |
Police needed to search the flat
26/01/2011 the Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic |
| Zinchenko and Others v. Russia, no. 73036/11 | ||
| Kirill Andreyevich ZINCHENKO | 18/10/2010
26/03/2011 Smolensk |
Meetings conducted without prior notification
06/09/2011 the Promyshlennyy District Court of Smolensk, Smolensk Region |
| Viktor Naumovich POKRYVAYLO | 22/07/2011
Perm |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
27/01/2012 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Perm, Perm Region |
| Rifat Ravilyevich ARTYUSHEVSKIY | 20/11/2010
Kazan |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
23/05/2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Tatarstan Republic |
| Sergey Aleksandrovich TYUMENTSEV | 17/04/2011
Yaroslavskiy |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
28/07/2011 the Khorolskiy District Court, Primorskiy Region |
| Nikolay Grigoryevich
TER-AVANESOV |
20/03/2011
Kaliningrad |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
17/08/2011 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Region |
| Adam Mikhaylovich SVARICHEVSKIY | 29/07/2011
Blagoveshchensk |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
09/09/2011 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court, Amur Region |
| Aleksandr Ivanovich SCHENDRYGIN | 14-15/05/2011
Belgorod |
Meetings conducted without prior notification
29/09/2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod, Belgorod Region |
| Ramzes Yulianovich KODEU | 09-10/06/2011
Voronezh |
Meetings conducted without prior notification
19/10/2011 the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Region |
| Burenkov v and Others v. Russia, no. 78114/11 | ||
| All the applicants | 21/10/2010
Salekhard
|
Police needed to search the flat
20/06/2011 the Yamalo-Nenets Regional Court |
| Golovko and Others v. Russia, no. 5571/12 | ||
| All the applicants | 26/10/2010
Kemerovo |
Police needed to search the Kingdom Hall 14/07/2011 the Kemerovo Regional Court |
| Shaikhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 65838/12 | ||
| Rafail Ravilyevich SHAIKHIYEV
Rufat Rashidovich GABAYDULIN Ilnur Rashitovich GAYFULLIN Ilgiz Ravilyevich GALIYEV Nailya Faatovna GALIYEVA Ilyusya Ildusovna SADREYEVA Gulshad Grigoryevna SITDIKOVA Railya Midkhatovna FAKHRUTDINOVA |
15/12/2011
Naberezhnyye Chelny |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
29/03/2012 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic |
| Aleksandr Vladimirovich KHILYUTA
Oksana Pavlovna KHILYUTA Oleg Yevgenyevich IVANOV Nataliya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO Marina Vyacheslavovna TROPINA Roberto ERNANDEZ-AGILAR Galina Vladimirovna RYBAKOVA Viktoria Vladimirovna TISHINA Anna Aleksandrovna MAMONTOVA |
16/03/2011
Dubna |
Police needed to search the Kingdom Hall
21/06/2012 the Moscow Regional Court |
| Mashinskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 35190/14 | ||
| All the applicants | 26/03/2013
Primorskiy Region |
Meeting conducted without prior notification
24/10/2013 the Primorskiy Regional Court |
APPENDIX II: LIST OF APPLICANTS, CLAIMS AND AWARDS UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
| Name | Year of birth | Residence | Pecuniary damage
awarded (EUR) |
Non-pecuniary damage (EUR) | |||
| Sought by the applicant | Awarded by the Court | ||||||
| Nabokikh and Others v. Russia, no. 19428/11, lodged on 21/03/2011 | |||||||
| Aleksandr Borisovich NABOKIKH | 1954 | Kirov | 37 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Aleksandr Vasilyevich AKHMATOV | 1973 | Solnechnyy | 25 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Vyacheslav Viktorovich TUMAKOV | 1963 | Prokhladnyy | 25 | 30,000 | 7,500 | ||
| Aleksey Georgievich TSARKOV | 1972 | Vladimir | 25 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Vasim Yusupovich ABLAYEV | 1979 | Ufa | 25 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Martynenko and Others v. Russia, no. 44363/11, lodged on 18/07/2011 | |||||||
| Dmitriy Yevgenyevich MARTYNENKO | 1980 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Zhanna Sergeyevna KALININA | 1978 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Alevtina Gennadyevna KAPITONOVA | 1970 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Tatyana Ilyinicnha GREBNEVA | 1952 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Marina Anatolyevna MOLCHANOVA | 1971 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Oleg Vladimirovich RUSINOV | 1975 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Natalya Anatolyevna RUSINOVA | 1978 | Yoshkar-Ola | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Zinchenko and Others v. Russia, no. 73036/11, lodged on 18/11/2011 | |||||||
| Kirill Andreyevich ZINCHENKO | 1986 | Smolensk | 37 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Viktor Naumovich POKRYVAYLO | 1952 | Perm | 62 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Rifat Ravilyevich ARTYUSHEVSKIY | 1977 | Kazan | 25 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Sergey Aleksandrovich TYUMENTSEV | 1952 | Yaroslavskiy | 25 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Nikolay Grigoryevich TER-AVANESOV | 1962 | Kaliningrad | 37 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Adam Mikhaylovich SVARICHEVSKIY | 1963 | Blagoveshchensk | 37 | 7,500 | 7,500 | ||
| Aleksandr Ivanovich SCHENDRYGIN | 1953 | Belgorod | 25 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Ramzes Yulianovich KODEU | 1966 | Voronezh | 25 | 5,000 | 5,000 | ||
| Burenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 78114/11, lodged on 15/12/2011 | |||||||
| Eduard Aleksandrovich BURENKOV | 1974 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Pavel Vadimovich KORCHAGIN | 1987 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Nataliya Vladimirovna SMETANIK | 1987 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Olga Petrovna BUZKO | 1984 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Olga Aleksandrovna TSYKALOVA | 1984 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Larisa Karlenovna OREKHOVSKAYA | 1965 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Violetta Vladimirovna PLASTININA | 1976 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Yelena Nikolaevna BOZHKOVA | 1981 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Olga Petrovna RASOVA | 1981 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Gennadiy Viktorovich SKUTELETS | 1976 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Inna Ivanovna TERENTYEVA | 1979 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Viktor Viktorovich LEYS | 1979 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Oksana Vladimirovna LEYS | 1976 | Salekhard | 10,000 | 7,500 | |||
| Golovko and Others v. Russia, no. 5571/12, lodged on 10/01/2012 | |||||||
| Pavel Konstantinovich GOLOVKO | 1980 | Kemerovo | 7,500 | 7,500 | |||
| Vitaliy Faritovich GAREYEV | 1982 | Kemerovo | 7,500 | 7,500 | |||
| Eduard Rafaelovich AKHUNZYANOV | 1973 | Kemerovo | 7,500 | 7,500 | |||
| Nadezhda Petrovna MAKSIMISHINA | 1946 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Nina Gennadyevna AKHUNZYANOVA | 1973 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Valentina Viktorovna GOLOVKO | 1961 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Anna Aleksandrovna STOLYAROVA | 1976 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Margarita Aleksandrovna ANKUDINOVA | 1977 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Nina Ivanovna VINOGRADOVA | 1937 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Lyudmila Andreyevna ZHARKOVA | 1937 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Darya Aleksandrovna KHMYROVA | 1979 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Lyudmila Ivanovna YASAKOVA | 1955 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Irina Anatolyevna MAKSIMISHINA | 1982 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Nina Tarasovna BELYAYEVA | 1936 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Nadezhda Nikolaevna KAMNEVA | 1954 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Tatiana Fedorovna VASILITSA | 1988 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Faina Mikhaylovna PANIKOROVSKAYA | 1936 | Kemerovo | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Shaikhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 65838/12, lodged on 26/09/2012 | |||||||
| Rafail Ravilyevich SHAIKHIYEV | 1971 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Rufat Rashidovich GABAYDULIN | 1987 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Ilnur Rashitovich GAYFULLIN | 1980 | Zainsk | 500 | 500 | |||
| Ilgiz Ravilyevich GALIYEV | 1988 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Nailya Faatovna GALIYEVA | 1966 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Ilyusya Ildusovna SADREYEVA | 1982 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Gulshad Grigoryevna SITDIKOVA | 1949 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Railya Midkhatovna FAKHRUTDINOVA | 1964 | Naberezhnyye Chelny | 500 | 500 | |||
| Aleksandr Vladimirovich KHILYUTA | 1959 | Dubna | 500 | 500 | |||
| Oksana Pavlovna KHILYUTA | 1961 | Nevinnomysk | 500 | 500 | |||
| Oleg Yevgenyevich IVANOV | 1970 | Dubna | 500 | 500 | |||
| Nataliya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO | 1968 | Mtsensk | 500 | 500 | |||
| Marina Vyacheslavovna TROPINA | 1971 | Dubna | 500 | 500 | |||
| Roberto ERNANDEZ-AGILAR | 1988 | Klin | 500 | 500 | |||
| Galina Vladimirovna RYBAKOVA | 1964 | Dubna | 500 | 500 | |||
| Viktoria Vladimirovna TISHINA | 1965 | Dubna | 500 | 500 | |||
| Anna Aleksandrovna MAMONTOVA | 1976 | Verbiliki | 500 | 500 | |||
| Mashinskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 35190/14, lodged on 22/04/2014 | |||||||
| Pavel Vasilyevich MASHINSKIY | 1961 | Ussuriysk | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
| Klavdiya Vladimirovna MASHINSKAYA | 1965 | Ussuriysk | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
| Lyubov Viktorovna VORONINA | 1980 | Novopokrovka | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
| Dmitriy Yuryevich CHERNYUK | 1982 | Ussuriysk | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
| Olesya Fedorovna CHERNYUK | 1984 | Ussuriysk | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
| Anna Germanovna SAVCHENKO | 1988 | Ussuriysk | 2,000 | 2,000 | |||
Leave a Reply