Communicated on 15 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44386/19 Dennis Ole CHRISTENSEN against Russia lodged on 20 August 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Dennis Ole Christensen, is a Danish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Oryol. He is represented before the Court by Dr Petr Muzny , a law professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are summarised below.

3 . On 18 October 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the 14 June 2016 decision of the Oryol Regional Court to liquidate the local religious organisation of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses in the city of Oryol (“Oryol LRO”) as an “extremist” organization. The applicant had never been a member of the Oryol LRO, and the congregation he was part of had never been banned. He and other individual Jehovah ’ s Witnesses continued to exercise their right to worship individually and collectively.

4 . At 7 p.m. on 25 May 2017, a group of 80 persons, including the applicant, were attending a religious service of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses at their Kingdom Hall in Oryol. Ten minutes after the service began, more than 10 masked and armed FSB officers forced their way into the Kingdom Hall. The FSB investigator went to the stage, stopped the religious service, said he was conducting a criminal investigation and told the audience they would all be subjected to a personal search.

5 . The FSB detained the applicant. He was held at the Kingdom Hall for more than 10 hours, until 5.30 a.m. the following morning. During those 10 hours, the police questioned all adults in attendance and seized their mobile phones, electronic tablets, Bibles and other personal religious literature. The applicant was put in pre-trial detention and later charged under Article 282.2(1) of the Criminal Code for continuing the activities of an extremist organisation.

6 . The applicant ’ s pre-trial detention lasted from 25 May 2017 to 6 February 2019. After more than fifty hearings, the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Oryol found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment. In the operative part of its decision, the court stated:

“... the liquidation of the [Oryol LRO] did not deprive that organisation ’ s participants of the possibility to individually perform religious worship that was not associated with the distribution of extremist religious literature. However, it has been established in the case that D. O. Christensen did not individually perform worship, but performed administrative functions within the [LRO] in accordance with its goals and plans and with the intent of continuing the organisation ’ s activity, which he knew had been banned on the basis of a court decision ... It can be seen from the combined testimony of said individuals that Mr Christensen was the head of the LRO of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses Oryol ... As an elder, he opened and closed the religious premises. He organised the cleaning of the building and adjacent territory. He assigned persons to be on duty at the entrance before the meeting. He determined who gave sermons and other presentations at the meetings, and designated persons to engage in preaching activity. In the absence of religious literature, he recommended that fellow believers study the literature using electronic devices with access to the Internet. He personally conducted meetings, during which he gave advice, explained the meaning of religious literature and designated the persons participating in the discussion of that literature. He reminded people of the need to donate money and collected the money that was received.”

7 . On 18 February 2019 the applicant appealed that decision. He argued that all his religious activities were part of his worship and were therefore protected by his right to freedom of religion. He emphasised that he had never been a member of the Oryol LRO and that his religious activities were of a spiritual nature. He added that on 18 October 2016 the Russian Supreme Court had clearly stated that despite the ban on the legal entities of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses, individual believers were “not deprived of the possibility of independently conducting worship services not associated with the distribution of religious literature with extremist content”. In this regard, he refuted the idea that worshipping “independently” or “individually” meant “alone”, as religion is inherently of a collective nature. He quoted from witness statements that unanimously testified that the applicant had not used any “extremist” material. He also stressed that his actions lacked any motive of hatred or enmity, since the religious services were of a peaceful nature, and that he did not pose any threat to the social values protected by law. Additionally, he maintained that he was discriminated against merely because he was one of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses.

8 . On 23 May 2019 the Oryol Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s arguments and upheld the trial decision on the basis that the applicant had “harmonised and coordinated his actions in directing the [Oryol LRO] with the higher organisation in the structure of the worldwide organisation of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses in the Russian Federation, the religious organisation Administrative Centre of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses in Russia, which by final decision of the Russian Supreme Court dated 20 April 2017 was liquidated in connection with carrying out extremist activity since 2010”.

COMPLAINTS

9 . The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 11 that he was given a sentence of imprisonment for continuing to practice the religion of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses in community with fellow believers.

10 . The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11, that he is the victim of direct and indirect religious discrimination in the Russian authorities ’ campaign of religious persecution of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the applicant ’ s conviction for continuing the activities of the local religious organisation of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses in the form of collective services of worship, has there been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, read alone or in the light of Article 11?

2. Has the applicant been a victim of discrimination on account of his religion, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Articles 9 and 11?