Communicated on 30 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 41260/17 Magrifa Myrzashiyevna SYDIKOVA and Pavel Vladimirovich ORLOV against Russia lodged on 5 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are Russian followers of Aum Shinrikyō , a Japanese religious cult founded in 1984 which was held responsible for several poisonous gas attacks in Tokyo in 1995. On 20 September 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia, in ex parte proceedings, pronounced Aum Shinrikyō to be a terrorist organisation and banned its activities in Russia. By virtue of Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code, persons who continue the activities of a terrorist organisation face criminal sanctions of between ten and twenty years ’ imprisonment. The police interviewed the applicants on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of Aum Shinrikyō . The applicants unsuccessfully sought to file an appeal against the Supreme Court ’ s decision; their appeals were rejected on the ground that the decision had no effect on their rights and that they were not parties to the original proceedings (final decisions of 7 and 10 February 2017).

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the provision which makes it a criminal offence to participate in the activities of an organisation that was pronounced to be terrorist and the applicants ’ status as followers of Aum Shinrikyō , can the applicants claim to be “victims” of the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention? Did the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 20 September 2016 affect the applicants ’ ability to exercise their rights under Article 9 of the Convention to the extent that it constituted an interference with their right to freedom of conscience? Was that judgment based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was the ban necessary in a democratic society? Did the Supreme Court consider the impact of the ban on the rights of the followers of Aum Shinrikyō cult ( see Jehovah ’ s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia , no. 302/02, § 159, 10 June 2010) ?

2. Did the applicants have an effective remedy for their complaint under Article 9 of the Convention, as required by Article 13? Were they afforded an opportunity to adduce reasons against the ban on the religious cult of which they were followers and against their exposure to criminal sanctions on account of their participation in that cult (see the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment no. 10-P of 21 April 2010, point 3.1)?