Published on 20 November 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 45588/16 RELIGIOUS CULT “BISERICA UNIFICĂRII” and AKHUNZYANOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 July 2016 communicated on 2 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are a religious cult and one of its members (see appendix). The case concerns searches carried out at the applicants’ premises and home. In 2015 a criminal investigation was initiated on charges of human trafficking allegedly organised by the members of the religious cult and conducted under its cover. On 21 October 2015 the investigating judge authorised the search of the headquarters and of the youth centre of the applicant organisation and of the other applicant’s home, allegedly used by the religious cult as a prayer room and as a meeting centre. The text of the search warrants was identical save for the address where the search had been authorised.

The searches were conducted on 30 October 2015, from 7 am to 10 am, simultaneously at all the locations, with telephones, laptops and other information carriers, diaries and bank cards being seized.

The applicants appealed against the search warrants, arguing that they lacked sufficient reasons and were formulated in extremely broad terms, that they had no procedural standing at the time and that the measures against them were driven by intolerance towards minority religious groups. They requested the reinstatement of their right to appeal against those warrants and sought the return of the items seized. On 29 March 2016 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the search warrant for the applicant organisation’s headquarters, finding the search unlawful because the religious cult had no procedural standing in the criminal proceedings and because the warrant was insufficiently reasoned and was formulated in extremely broad terms. On 25 April 2016 the same court refused reinstatement and rejected as out of time the applicant organisation’s appeal in respect of the search carried out at its youth centre. On 25 April 2016 the same court reinstated the second applicant (Ilfat Akhunzyanov)’s appeal but rejected it as manifestly ill ‑ founded.

The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that the searches and seizures conducted breached their right to respect for their home and correspondence and to freedom of religion because the searches were unlawful and authorised in the absence of sufficient reasons. They also complain of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention due to the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the search warrants, arguing that the search warrants and the conditions of their execution were identical, while the decisions given by the domestic courts were different.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the facts complained of breach the first and second applicants’ right to respect for their home, correspondence and private life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the search warrants of 21 October 2015 contain sufficient and adequate reasons justifying an interference with the applicants’ rights under that provision (see Mancevschi v. Moldova , no. 33066/04, §§ 45 ‑ 48, 7 October 2008; Posevini v. Bulgaria , no. 63638/14, §§ 65-66, 19 January 2017)?

2. Did the searches and seizures conducted amount to an interference with the first and second applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary, as required under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention (see Dimitrova v. Bulgaria , no. 15452/07, §§ 28-29, 10 February 2015)?

3. Having regard to the different decisions taken by the domestic courts in respect of identical search warrants, did the first and second applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Articles 8 and 9, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Boychev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 77185/01, §§ 54-56, 27 January 2011) and a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 49-58, 20 October 2011)?

APPENDIX

Application no. 45588/16

No.

Application no. Case name Introduction date

Applicants’ name Year of birth/Registration date Place of residence Nationality

Representative’s name Location

1.

45588/16 Cultul Religios Biserica Unificării and Akhunzyanov v. the Republic of Moldova 26/07/2016

CULTUL RELIGIOS “BISERICA UNIFICĂRII” 2008 Ialoveni Moldovan Ilfat AKHUNZYANOV 1977 Chișinău Moldovan

Doina-Ioana STRĂISTEANU Chișinău