Lexploria

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

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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.

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).

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.

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,

(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;

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

1954Kirov

37

5,000

Aleksandr Vasilyevich AKHMATOV

1973Solnechnyy

25

7,500

Vyacheslav Viktorovich TUMAKOV

1963Prokhladnyy

25

30,000

7,500

Aleksey Georgievich TSARKOV

1972Vladimir

25

7,500

Vasim Yusupovich ABLAYEV

1979Ufa

25

5,000

Martynenko and Others v. Russia , no. 44363/11, lodged on 18/07/2011

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich MARTYNENKO

1980Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Zhanna Sergeyevna KALININA

1978Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Alevtina Gennadyevna KAPITONOVA

1970Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Tatyana Ilyinicnha GREBNEVA

1952Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Marina Anatolyevna MOLCHANOVA

1971Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Oleg Vladimirovich RUSINOV

1975Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Natalya Anatolyevna RUSINOVA

1978Yoshkar-Ola

10,000

7,500

Zinchenko and Others v. Russia , no. 73036/11, lodged on 18/11/2011

Kirill Andreyevich ZINCHENKO

1986Smolensk

37

7,500

Viktor Naumovich POKRYVAYLO

1952Perm

62

5,000

Rifat Ravilyevich ARTYUSHEVSKIY

1977Kazan

25

7,500

Sergey Aleksandrovich TYUMENTSEV

1952Yaroslavskiy

25

5,000

Nikolay Grigoryevich TER-AVANESOV

1962Kaliningrad

37

7,500

Adam Mikhaylovich SVARICHEVSKIY

1963Blagoveshchensk

37

7,500

Aleksandr Ivanovich SCHENDRYGIN

1953Belgorod

25

5,000

Ramzes Yulianovich KODEU

1966Voronezh

25

5,000

Burenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 78114/11, lodged on 15/12/2011

Eduard Aleksandrovich BURENKOV

1974Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Pavel Vadimovich KORCHAGIN

1987Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Nataliya Vladimirovna SMETANIK

1987Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Olga Petrovna BUZKO

1984Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Olga Aleksandrovna TSYKALOVA

1984Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Larisa Karlenovna OREKHOVSKAYA

1965Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Violetta Vladimirovna PLASTININA

1976Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Yelena Nikolaevna BOZHKOVA

1981Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Olga Petrovna RASOVA

1981Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Gennadiy Viktorovich SKUTELETS

1976Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Inna Ivanovna TERENTYEVA

1979Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Viktor Viktorovich LEYS

1979Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Oksana Vladimirovna LEYS

1976Salekhard

10,000

7,500

Golovko and Others v. Russia, no. 5571/12, lodged on 10/01/2012

Pavel Konstantinovich GOLOVKO

1980Kemerovo

7,500

Vitaliy Faritovich GAREYEV

1982Kemerovo

7,500

Eduard Rafaelovich AKHUNZYANOV

1973Kemerovo

7,500

Nadezhda Petrovna MAKSIMISHINA

1946Kemerovo

5,000

Nina Gennadyevna AKHUNZYANOVA

1973Kemerovo

5,000

Valentina Viktorovna GOLOVKO

1961Kemerovo

5,000

Anna Aleksandrovna STOLYAROVA

1976Kemerovo

5,000

Margarita Aleksandrovna ANKUDINOVA

1977Kemerovo

5,000

Nina Ivanovna VINOGRADOVA

1937Kemerovo

5,000

Lyudmila Andreyevna ZHARKOVA

1937Kemerovo

5,000

Darya Aleksandrovna KHMYROVA

1979Kemerovo

5,000

Lyudmila Ivanovna YASAKOVA

1955Kemerovo

5,000

Irina Anatolyevna MAKSIMISHINA

1982Kemerovo

5,000

Nina Tarasovna BELYAYEVA

1936Kemerovo

5,000

Nadezhda Nikolaevna KAMNEVA

1954Kemerovo

5,000

Tatiana Fedorovna VASILITSA

1988Kemerovo

5,000

Faina Mikhaylovna PANIKOROVSKAYA

1936Kemerovo

5,000

Shaikhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 65838/12, lodged on 26/09/2012

Rafail Ravilyevich SHAIKHIYEV

1971Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Rufat Rashidovich GABAYDULIN

1987Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Ilnur Rashitovich GAYFULLIN

1980Zainsk

500

500Ilgiz Ravilyevich GALIYEV

1988Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Nailya Faatovna GALIYEVA

1966Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Ilyusya Ildusovna SADREYEVA

1982Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Gulshad Grigoryevna SITDIKOVA

1949Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Railya Midkhatovna FAKHRUTDINOVA

1964Naberezhnyye Chelny

500

500Aleksandr Vladimirovich KHILYUTA

1959Dubna

500

500Oksana Pavlovna KHILYUTA

1961Nevinnomysk

500

500Oleg Yevgenyevich IVANOV

1970Dubna

500

500Nataliya Pavlovna MASHCHENKO

1968Mtsensk

500

500Marina Vyacheslavovna TROPINA

1971Dubna

500

500Roberto ERNANDEZ-AGILAR

1988Klin

500

500Galina Vladimirovna RYBAKOVA

1964Dubna

500

500Viktoria Vladimirovna TISHINA

1965Dubna

500

500Anna Aleksandrovna MAMONTOVA

1976Verbiliki

500

500Mashinskiy and Others v. Russia , no. 35190/14, lodged on 22/04/2014

Pavel Vasilyevich MASHINSKIY

1961Ussuriysk

2,000

Klavdiya Vladimirovna MASHINSKAYA

1965Ussuriysk

2,000

Lyubov Viktorovna VORONINA

1980Novopokrovka

2,000

Dmitriy Yuryevich CHERNYUK

1982Ussuriysk

2,000

Olesya Fedorovna CHERNYUK

1984Ussuriysk

2,000

Anna Germanovna SAVCHENKO

1988Ussuriysk

2,000

Menu

CASE OF NABOKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF NABOKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI