Communicated on 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25051/11 OOO IZDATEL EZHAYEV A.K . against Russia lodged on 21 March 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the ban on distributing two Muslim books published by the applicant. The first book, “The fundamentals of faith in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah ” ( “ Основы веры в свете Корана и Сунны ”) was declared extremist twice: the 2006 issue of the book was declared extremist and banned by the judgment of the Tsentralnyy D istrict Court of Tolyatti of 24 December 2010, as upheld on appeal by the Samara Regional Court on 1 March 2011; the 2008 issue of the book was declared extremist and banned by the judgment of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen of 11 October 2010, as upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Regional Court on 27 December 2010. The second book, “The life of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him” (“ Жизнь Пророка , да благословит его Аллах и да приветствует ”), authored by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri , was declared extremist and banned by the judgment of the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 19 April 2011. On 11 October 2011 the St Petersburg Regional Court refused the applicant ’ s application for leave to appeal, finding that its rights had not been affected by the judgment.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The parties are requested to submit copies of the appeal judgment of the Samara Regional Court of 1 March 2011, of the appeal judgment of the Tyumen Regional Court of 27 December 2010, of the judgment of the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 19 April 2011 and of the expert reports on which the latter judgment relied, if any.

2. Given that the applicant is a publisher, can it claim to be a victim of t he alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention?

3. Did the ban on the distribution of the books “The fundamentals of faith in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah ” ( “ Основы веры в свете Корана и Сунны ”) and “The life of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him” (“ Жизнь Пророка , да благословит его Аллах и да приветствует ”) interfere with the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 9 or 10 of the Convention? Was the interference prescribed by law? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” wi thin the meaning of Article 9 § 2 and 10 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference? Did they specify which parts of the publications were problematic? Did they draw their own conclusions from the expert reports (see point 23 of the Supreme Court ’ s resolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011)? Did they consider the impact of the ban on the rights of the followers of Islam ( see Jehovah ’ s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia , no. 302/02, § 159, 10 June 2010)?

4. Given that the applicant was not notified of the date of the hearing of 19 April 2011 and was refused leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on that date, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment no. 10-P of 21 April 2010, point 3.1)?