Communicated on 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 29346/10 Ayrat Mukharramovich SHAKIROV against Russia lodged on 26 April 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns a written warning issued against the applicant, an Islamic preacher, by the prosecutor ’ s office. The warning stated that there was intelligence information that the applicant was trying to create in Kazan a branch of “ Ahl as- Sunnah ” [1] , a religious association which adhered to a radical form of Islam different from the form of Islam traditionally practised in Tatarstan . The prosecutor therefore warned the applicant that if he created an extremist association, he could be held liable under Article 282.1 of the Criminal Code. On 13 August 2009 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan found that the warning had been issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and that the intelligence information that had served as a basis for the warning was a State secret and was not therefore subject to judicial scrutiny. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 23 November 2009.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The Government are requested to submit a copy of the appeal judgment by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic of 23 November 2009.

2. What was the scope of review of the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan and the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic which examined the applicant ’ s judicial review complaint against the warning? Was the judicial review limited to ascertaining that the warning had been issued in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law? Did the courts have competence to verify the grounds for the warning, and in particular the existence of specific facts serving as a basis for the finding that the applicant was trying to create an extremist association? Did the courts make a balancing exercise between the need to protect legitimate public interests and the applicant ’ s freedoms of religion, expression and association?

3. Were the classified materials from the Federal Security Service disclosed to the applicant? Was the applicant given a fair and reasonable opportunity to refute the facts and findings contained in those materials?

4. Did the warning issued against the applicant interfere with his rights under Articles 9, 10 or 11 the Convention? Was the interference prescribed by law? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Articles 9 § 2, 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 9, 11 and 11?

[1] 1 . In Arabic, the expression ahl as- S unnah wa l- jamāʻah , which is often shortened to ahl as- S unnah , means "the people of the Sunnah and the community" and commonly designates the Sunni branch of Islam.