Communicated on 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 2841/10 and 79469/13 Fatikh Gayazovich BASYROV against Russia and Farit Ravkhatovich BIKEYEV and Others against Russia lodged on 21 December 2009 and 5 November 2013 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the ban on a religious Islamic association Tabligh Jamaat and p rosecution of its members. On 7 May 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, sitting in camera, declared Tabligh Jamaat an extremist organisation and banned it. The judgment was never published. On 30 July 2009 the Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court refused Mr Basyrov ’ s application for a leave to appeal, finding that he was not a party to the proceedings and that his rights were not affected by the judgment. On 9 September 2009 a prosecutor ’ s office issued a written warning to Mr Basyrov . The warning stated that Mr Basyrov was a member of Tabligh Jamaat which had been declared an extremist organisation. The prosecutor therefore warned Mr Basyrov that his membership of Tabligh Jamaat made him liable under Article 282.2 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

On 9 April 2013 the Justice of the Peace of the Sol- Istetskiy District of the Orenburg Region convicted Mr Bikeyev , Mr Bimukhanov , Mr Dubertalayev and Mr Krushenov of leadership ( Mr Bikeyev ) and membership ( Mr Bimukhanov , Mr Dubertalayev and Mr Krushenov ) of an extremist organisation , an offence under Article 282.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to fines ranging from 50,000 to 250,000 Russian roubles . She found that they had participated in the activities of Tabligh Jamaat from May 2009 to June 2011, that is after it had been declared an extremist organisation . On 31 May 2013 the Sol- Istetskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region upheld the conviction on appeal .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The Government are requested to submit a copy of the judgment of 7 May 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and copies of expert reports on which it relies, if any. Was that judgment officially published? If it was published, the Government are requested to produce a copy of the official publication of the full text or, at least, the operative part of the judgment.

2. The parties are requested to submit copies of the judgments made in the judicial review proceedings instituted by Mr Basyrov against the warning of 9 September 2009.

3. As regards the Supreme Court ’ s decision to declare Tabligh Jamaat an extremist organisation and ban it, was there a violation of Mr Basyrov ’ s rights to freedom of religion, expression and association under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular, what legitimate aim did that measure pursue, was it proportionate to that legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society?

4. Given that members of Tabligh Jamaat were not notified of the date of the hearing of 7 May 2009, that the judgment delivered on that date had been never published and that Mr Basyrov was refused leave to appeal against the judgment, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Conventi on in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Basyrov (see the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment no. 10-P of 21 April 20 10, point 3.1)?

5. Did the warning issued against Mr Basyrov interfere with his rights under Articles 9, 10 or 11 the Convention? Was the interference prescribed by law? In particular, if the judgment of 7 May 2009 was not officially published, can the applicable law be considered sufficiently accessible and foreseeable? Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles 9 § 2, 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?

6. If the judgment of 7 May 2009 was not officially published in the period from May 2009 to June 2011 , can the law on the basis of which Mr Bikeyev , Mr Bimukhanov , Mr Dubertalayev and Mr Krushenov were convicted be considered sufficiently accessible and foreseeable, as required by Article 7 of the Convention (see Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia , nos. 26261/05 and 26377/06 , §§ 89-95, 14 March 2013)?

7. As regards Mr Bikeyev ’ s , Mr Bimukhanov ’ s , Mr Dubertalayev ’ s and Mr Krushenov ’ s conviction, was there an interference with their right to freedom of religion, expression or association under Articles 9 § 1, 10 § 1 or 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Articles 9 § 2, 10 § 2 and 11 § 2?

APPENDIX

Application no 2841/10

Application no 79469/13