Communicated on 4 August 2020 Published on 24 August 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 10299/15 Mariya Vladimirovna ALEKHINA and Others against Russia lodged on 19 February 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the Russian authorities to register the applicants ’ human rights organisation “The zone of law” ( Зона права ).

The applicants listed in the Appendix: two members of a punk band Pussy Riot, and a retired official from the Russian Federal Prison Service attempted to establish a public association aimed at providing legal assistance to prisoners.

On 22 January and 3 April 2014 the registration authority dismissed their application for the registration of the organisation on mostly formal grounds, such as the missing space between two words in the application form, the indication of “the shortened name” of the organisation instead of “the abbreviated name”, etc.

On 20 May 2014 it issued a new refusal of registration noting the applicants ’ failure to choose an appropriate name for their organisation. In view of the authorities the name “The zone of law” did not describe the activity of the organisation. The registration authority also mentioned that the charter of the organisation did not meet the legal requirements, because the list of the organisation ’ s activity was not exhaustive and because certain internal procedures had not been duly described in the charter.

The applicants challenged the refusal to register the public organisation before the Kuntsevskiy District Court in Moscow, which dismissed the challenge. The applicants appealed against that decision, but to no avail. The Moscow City Court upheld the findings of the lower court on 8 December 2014.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference “prescribed by law”? In particular, did the applicable legislation satisfy the “quality of law” requirement? If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, could the breaches of the domestic law cited by the registration authority, including the choice of the name for the applicants ’ organisation, justify the refusal of its registration?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaint under Article 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth year

Place of residence

1.Ms M. ALEKHINA

1988Moscow

2.Mr V. RUBASHNYY

1968Kazan

3.Ms N. TOLOKONNIKOVA

1989Norilsk