{"id":18063,"date":"2022-02-23T18:16:21","date_gmt":"2022-02-23T18:16:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18063"},"modified":"2022-02-23T18:16:21","modified_gmt":"2022-02-23T18:16:21","slug":"case-of-cheprunovy-and-others-v-russia-european-court-of-human-rights-74320-10-and-4-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18063","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF CHEPRUNOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 74320\/10 and 4 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF CHEPRUNOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 74320\/10 and 4 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 February 2022<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Cheprunovy and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by Russian nationals whose details are listed in the Appendix (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) and who were represented by a team of lawyers led by Mr Petr Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Fedorov, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

the decision to reject the Government\u2019s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2022,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case concerns searches in the flats of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and in the prayer hall owned by a local religious organisation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses.<\/p>\n

2. The applicants are individual Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and the Kostomuksha local religious organisation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (the \u201cKostomuksha LRO\u201d). On various dates between 2010 and 2012, the Russian courts authorised searches and inspections in the applicants\u2019 flats on the basis that, as Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, they might be involved in extremist activities and distribution of extremist literature. The Federal Security Service (the \u201cFSB\u201d) also issued an inspection order for the prayer hall owned by the Kostomuksha LRO.<\/p>\n

3. The authorities searched the applicants\u2019 flats and seized the religious literature they had found, including Bibles, magazines and books, and other personal items, such as computers, video-recordings, writing pads and notebooks. Domestic courts dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaints about the searches, finding that they had been duly authorised by judicial decisions and carried out in accordance with the law (see the Appendix).<\/p>\n

4. Following an inspection in her flat and seizure of religious brochures, Ms Chavychalova (application no. 74329\/10) was found guilty of \u201cunlawful possession of extremist material with the aim of mass distributing\u201d, an offence under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), and fined 1,500 Russian roubles.<\/p>\n

5. The applicants complained that the searches in their flats and seizure of their religious literature and personal belongings were neither lawful, nor \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, and thus, violated their rights guaranteed by the Articles 8, 9, 10, and 14 of the Convention. Some of the applicants also relied on Articles 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this respect.<\/p>\n

THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

7. The complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

8. The Court will consider the complaints concerning the search of the applicants\u2019 flats and the prayer hall of the applicant organisation, the seizure of their religious literature and the conviction of Ms Chavychalova, from the standpoint of Article 9 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Boychev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77185\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 45 and 59, 27 January 2011, and Dimitrova v. Bulgaria, no. 15452\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 28 and 40, 10 February 2015). Those measures, taken as they were in response to a manifestation of the applicants\u2019 religious beliefs, constituted an interference with their right to freedom of religion.<\/p>\n

9. Given that the searches in the applicants\u2019 flats and in the prayer hall had been authorised by the domestic courts or subject to ex post facto judicial control (see paragraphs 1 and 2 above and the Appendix), the Court will proceed on the assumption that these searches were lawful in domestic terms and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime. It remains to be ascertained whether the impugned measures were \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, in particular, whether the relationship between the aim sought to be achieved and the means employed can be considered proportionate (see Yuditskaya and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a05678\/06, \u00a7 26, 12 February 2015, and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264\/04 and 15 others, \u00a7 124, 4 February 2020).<\/p>\n

10. The Government submitted that the authorities had had sufficient grounds to believe that the applicants could be involved in illegal activities and keep extremist literature on their premises. The Court notes that the search warrants advanced primarily one reason for that suspicion \u2013 the fact that the applicants were active members of the local congregations of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. Apart from that and operational information from an unidentified source, the judicial decisions authorising the searches gave no reasons for such suspicions or referred to any evidence capable of corroborating them. In the case of Mr and Mrs Cheprunov, search authorisations referred to pending proceedings, in which they were neither suspects nor defendants. In sum, the Court concludes that whether the court search warrants were issued in advance or the applicants appealed such orders to the courts ex post facto, the national courts did not carry out a balancing exercise or examine whether there have been relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference, whether the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights had answered a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (see Kruglov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 129).<\/p>\n

11. The Court also finds that the terms of the search warrants were excessively broad and that they gave the police unrestricted discretion in determining which items were relevant for the investigation (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152\/06, \u00a7 43, 18 September 2014, with further references). This resulted in an extensive search and the seizure of religious literature, including titles which had not been declared extremist, and also of personal computers, video-recordings, writing pads and notebooks. In so far as the search warrants did not impose any meaningful limits on the power exercised by the police, they impinged on the applicants\u2019 rights to an extent that was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Misan v. Russia, no.\u00a04261\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 61-63, 2 October 2014).<\/p>\n

12. Considering that the searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine their impact to reasonable bounds, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

13. There has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of all applicants.<\/p>\n

III. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n

14. The applicants also complained under Articles 6, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised. It thus considers that the applicants\u2019 remaining complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v.\u00a0Romania\u00a0[GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7\u00a0156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

15. Ms Chavychalova claimed 1,837 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the amount of fine she had paid and the loss of earnings, as she had allegedly been dismissed because of her conviction. Ms Zharikova and Mr Naumov also jointly claimed EUR 500 for the pecuniary damage they sustained as a result of seizure of their personal items. The applicants claimed various sums in respect of non-pecuniary damage, set out in the Appendix. They further claimed a total of EUR 23,663 euros for costs and expenses, and additional sums of money in respect of \u201cpunitive damages\u201d.<\/p>\n

16. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive.<\/p>\n

17. As regards the pecuniary damage, the Court awards EUR 500 jointly to Ms Zharikova and Mr Naumov. The Court also awards Ms Chavychalova EUR\u00a037, and rejects her claim for the loss of earnings. It further awards the sums indicated in the appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. As regards costs and expenses, the Court awards EUR 5,000 jointly to all the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. Lastly, it rejects the claims for punitive damages in accordance with its well\u2011established practice (see the cases cited in Greens and M.T. v.\u00a0the\u00a0United\u00a0Kingdom, nos. 60041\/08 and 60054\/08, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).<\/p>\n

18. 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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints;<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(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:<\/p>\n

(i) EUR 37 (thirty-seven euros) to Ms Chavychalova, and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) jointly to Ms Zharikova and Mr\u00a0Naumov, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(ii) the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(iii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) jointly to all the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 February 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Olga Chernishova\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Name
\nYear of birth\/incorporation
\nResidence\/Seat<\/td>\n		Type of premises<\/td>\nDates of search and final judicial decision<\/td>\nPecuniary damage awarded EUR<\/td>\nNon-pecuniary damage EUR<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Claimed<\/td>\nAwarded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cheprunovy v.\u00a0Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a074320\/10, lodged on 06\/12\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mikhail Yuryevich CHEPRUNOV
\n1977
\nTambov
\nLarisa Vladimirovna CHEPRUNOVA
\n1974
\nTambov<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n17\/03\/2010
\n10\/06\/2010
\nthe Tambov Regional Court<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Chavychalova v. Russia<\/em>, no. 74329\/10, lodged on 06\/12\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yelena Aleksandrovna CHAVYCHALOVA
\n1975
\nRybnoye<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n1\/04\/2010
\n28\/06\/2010 the Supreme Court of Russia<\/td>\n		37<\/td>\n10,000<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Novakovskaya v. Russia, <\/em>no. 74339\/10, lodged on 06\/12\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yelena Vladimirovna NOVAKOVSKAYA
\n1971
\nRybnoye<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n1\/04\/2010
\n28\/09\/2010 the Supreme Court of Russia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pekshuyev and Others v. Russia, <\/em>no.\u00a060771\/13, lodged on 11\/09\/2013<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Andrey Khannesovich PEKSHUYEV
\n1953
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n13\/07\/2012
\n1\/04\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOROLKOV
\n1974
\nKalevala<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n13\/07\/2012
\n14\/03\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Galina Alekseyevna ZHARIKOVA
\n1972
\nKalevala<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n13\/07\/2012
\n11\/03\/2013 and 21\/03\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sergey Shanderivich NAUMOV
\n1971
\nKalevala<\/td>\n		7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nadezhda Anatolyevna ZABOLOTNYKH
\n1956
\nKalevala<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n13\/07\/2012
\n11\/03\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lyudmila Stepanovna KOLENEN
\n1960
\nKalevala<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n13\/07\/2012
\n4\/04\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ogorodnikov and Others v. Russia, <\/em>no.\u00a029295\/14, lodged on 11\/04\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Local Religious Organisation of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses \u201cKostomuksha\u201d
\n1998
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		Prayer hall<\/td>\n23\/11\/2012
\n17\/10\/2013 the Supreme Court of Karelia<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n10,000<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Andrey Pavlovich OGORODNIKOV
\n1965
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n<\/td>\n10,000<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lyudmila Nikolaevna OGORODNIKOVA
\n1972
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		10,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Pavel Ivanovich STEPANOV
\n1971
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		Flat<\/td>\n<\/td>\n10,000<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Olga Mikhaylovna SAMCHENKO
\n1961
\nKostomuksha<\/td>\n		10,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n