Communicated on 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21115/13 SOZLER NESRYAT TICARET VE SANAYI ANONIM SYRKETI against Russia lodged on 12 March 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the ban on distributing a Muslim book “Comparison of the faith and the lack of faith” (“ Сравнение веры и неверия ”) from the Risale -I Nur collection, a body of commentary on the Quran written by a Muslim Turkish scholar Said Nursi , published by the applicant. The book was declared extremist and banned by the judgment of the Tsentralnyy Dist rict Court of Krasnoyarsk of 29 December 2011. On 19 September 2012 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court refused the applicant ’ s application for leave to appeal, finding that it was not a party to the proceedings.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The parties are requested to submit copies of the expert report of 5 August 2011 by the experts from the Astafyev Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University.

2. Given that the applicant is a publishing company, 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 book “Comparison of the faith and the lack of faith” (“ Сравнение веры и неверия ”) by Said Nursi pronounced in the judgment of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk of 29 December 2011 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” wit hin the meaning of Articles 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 29 December 2011 and was refused leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on that date, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Conventi on 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)?