Published on 13 September 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 45519/18 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich VLADIMIROV against Russia lodged on 19 September 2018 communicated on 23 August 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Vladimirov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1999 and lives in Cheboksary. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 22 January 2016 the applicant was registered with the local military commissariat. The same day he was declared fit for military service.

4. On 23 September 2016 he applied for alternative civilian service, however, no reply was given to that application.

5. On 20 March 2017 he applied for the second time for alternative civilian service, providing all the necessary documents to prove his belief, including an autobiography, appraisal reports from school and college, as well as a certificate from the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia stating that it was the applicant’s personal choice as a Jehovah’s witness whether to perform the military service or not.

6. On 20 April 2017 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation extremist and ordered its suppression.

7. On 28 April 2017 the draft commission heard the application for alternative civilian service. The applicant was not given an opportunity to plead orally in support of his application. He was allegedly called ‘extremist’ by the chairperson of the draft commission because of his affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The application was dismissed on the same day. No reasons were provided in breach of relevant provisions of the domestic law, though a handwritten mark “refuse to substitute military service with alternative civilian service because he is a Jehovah’s witness” appeared in the applicant’s personal file.

8. On 3 July 2017 the applicant brought a case before the Cheboksarskiy District Court of the Chuvashia Republic complaining about scarcity of reasons and asking to reverse the decision of the draft commission. The applicant and his father gave oral testimonies during the hearings explaining the applicant’s belief, i.e. that he had been raised in a family where every member (except the father) was Jehovah’s Witness, he had been baptised in that religion and became officially its follower in 2012, he was living according to the principles of his faith and the Bible, his older brother had been granted the right to serve alternative civilian service. The documents that had been previously submitted to the draft commission were also provided to the court.

9. On 26 July 2017 the first-instance court found during the hearing that an autobiography page from the applicant’s personal file had gone missing. As explained by the applicant, it was the only document where he had had the opportunity to describe his convictions. This was neither contested by the draft commission, nor dismissed by the court. He further explained that appraisal reports did not have any information about his beliefs since the appraisers assessed him as their student, and not as a person.

10. On the same day the first-instance court dismissed the action, stating that “no sufficient and convincing evidence had been presented to confirm that the plaintiff had developed strong and firm convictions that would be in contradiction [with the] military service” (“ административным истцом не было представлено достаточных и убедительных доказательств, свидетельствующих о его сформировавшихся твердых и прочных религиозных убеждений, противоречащих несению военной службы ”). In particular, it pointed out with reference to the provided certificate that the mere membership in the Jehovah’s Witnesses does not automatically lead to insurmountable conflict with one’s obligation to perform military service. It further noted that the appraisal reports did not contain any information on his religious beliefs.

11. In his subsequent appeals the applicant complained that draft commission had not provided any reasons when dismissing his application, and that the court acted ultra vires by providing them itself. He further complained that the court established an unreasonably high standard of proof and thus, breached the equality of arms. The appeals were dismissed with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 March 2018. The higher courts merely repeated the reasoning of the lower court.

12. On 19 April 2019 the applicant lodged a new request for alternative civilian service, and on 24 April 2019 the military commissariat confirmed its receipt.

13. On unspecified date the applicant was orally informed of the decision to dismiss his request. He had never been given a copy of that decision.

14. To date the applicant has not been allowed to perform alternative civilian service. The military commissariat has allegedly been searching for him and he may face criminal prosecution.

COMPLAINTS

15. The applicant complains under Article 9, both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about a violation of his freedom of religion by the refusal to replace military service with alternative civilian service due to him being a Jehovah’s witness. In particular, he complains about scarcity of reasons of the decision of the commission and that the domestic courts set an unreasonably high standard of proof.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of thought or religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention? Did the military authorities and the domestic courts give due consideration to the applicant’s convictions? Did they rely on relevant and sufficient reasons in dismissing the applicant’s request for alternative civilian service?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights under Article 9 of the Convention on the ground of his affiliation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?

In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment during the processing of his application to replace conscripted military service with alternative civilian service? What has been the ground for that difference in treatment? In particular, did his affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses serve as the sole or determinative ground for that difference in treatment?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?