Jehovah's Witnesses have appealed to the Supreme Court's decision

bruceq · May 22, 2017

Jehovah's Witnesses have appealed to the Supreme Court's decision

May 22, 2017 [TRANSLATED FROM RUSSIAN]

Trying to complete ban Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia

At position 30-day period has filed an appeal to the Russian Supreme Court's decision of 20 April 2017 on the Elimination of all registered organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. The full text of the complaint is published below.

Filing a complaint means that, although the decision terminated a registered organization, it will not come into force and subject to review on appeal - a panel of three Supreme Court judges. The date of the appeal hearing has been scheduled.

Download in PDF format (584 KB)

	The Appeals Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation121260, Moscow, ul. Cook, 15
Administrative defendant:	Religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia"197739, St. Petersburg, pos. Solar Street. Average 6
administrative claimant:	The Ministry of Justice119991, Moscow, ul. Zhitnyaya 14
administrative proceedings:	AKPI17-238

petition for appeal

Decision of the Supreme Court of 20.04.2017, the administrative proceedings AKPI17-238

THE COURT'S DECISION IS BEING APPEALED

By a decision of 04/20/2017, the administrative proceedings AKPI17-238 (hereinafter - the "Decision"), the Supreme Court upheld an administrative claim the Ministry of Justice of Russia abolished the religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" (hereinafter - the religious organization) and its member its structure of local religious organizations and drew the assets of the liquidated religious organization, remaining after satisfaction of creditors' claims to the Russian Federation.

FACE DEMANDS TO APPEAL, AND THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT CONSIDERS THE COURT DECISION WRONG

Administrative defendant states the requirement of a complete cancellation of the decision of the court on the case and taking a new decision to reject the administrative claim Russian Ministry of Justice, because there are the following grounds on which he believes the court decision wrong:
- The solution is based on the presumption of guilt of Jehovah's Witnesses in extremist activity, rather than a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct research available in the administrative case of evidence and without a proper background check on the facts, on the basis of which was subject to determination of the existence or absence of circumstances justifying the requirements and objections of the persons participating in the case, as well as other circumstances that are important for proper consideration and resolution of administrative proceedings;

- to liquidate independent legal entities, registered by the authorized federal bodies of state power in the form of religious organizations in the activities which are no facts of extremism, both generally and those with the presence of that federal law relates the possibility of their elimination;

- By the decision violated the rights and legitimate interests of the administration of the plaintiff, as well as natural and legal persons of the Christian religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, not involved in the case;

- The decision not to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation.
The wrong decision is so obvious that it is recognized even by sincere opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses. So, 25/04/2017, on the official website of the "interlocutor» (https://sobesednik.ru/obshchestvo/20170425-andrey-kuraev-zapret-svideteley-iegovy-podryvaet-doverie-ks) Publishing House published an interview archdeacon Andrew Kuraeva " ban "Jehovah's Witnesses" undermines the credibility of the court. " It Kuraev said: "To accuse them of extremism - it is ridiculous ... To accuse pacifists, radical neprotivlentsev-Tolstoyans extremism! ... Supreme Court this decision seriously compromised. Undermined the belief that you can trust the judicial system in Russia, even at the highest level. In this case I speak not advocate "Jehovah's Witnesses" ... I am advocating common sense and a stability in our society. Politically speaking, it is the decision of the Armed Forces destabilize the country, it rocks the boat, is the power of an evil and unpredictable form and thereby create unnecessary suspicion and cautious in society. "

EVIDENCE OF WRONG DECISIONS

I of . Improperly identifying circumstances important for administrative case (n. 1 hr. 2 v. CAS 310 RF), court excluded from the scope of court review circumstances applying political repression violating art. 18 on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention

Taking the contested decision, the trial court proceeded from the fact that the proclamation of an extremist religious organization is independent of the characteristics, reputation, and other qualities of the respective associations, which do not prevent its liquidation in establishing in its activities of extremism.
The court pointed out that the facts in relation to the religious association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia as a whole has entered into legal force of court decisions in civil, administrative cases, the judges ruling on cases of administrative legal relations.
"Not having the prejudicial values in accordance with Article 64 of the Code of administrative proceedings in view of the lack of participation in the consideration of Ministers of the Organization, - he admitted the court of first instance - these have come into force court decisions because of the requirement of obligation, laid down in Article 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law on December 31, 1996 № 1-FKZ "on the judicial system of the Russian Federation", are among the relevance and admissibility of the evidence of the facts of extremist activity five persons mentioned in them "(page 37 of the judgment). On this basis, the Court of First Instance did not include the number of circumstances relevant to the administrative case, evidence of the unlawful application of the anti-extremist legislation to Jehovah's Witnesses, and there are indications of politically motivated prosecutions against them. The Court declined to verify these facts, evaluation and presentation of the corresponding results in the Decision. This approach can not be considered based on the law.
Sense preclusion attached in para. 2 tbsp. 64 CAS Russian Federation, is not proved again and will not be contested at the court's consideration of the administrative case circumstances established by a legally effective court decision on the earlier consideration of the civil or administrative proceedings or in the case, considered earlier by the arbitral tribunal, if it involving people with respect to which such circumstances or persons belonging to the categories of persons against whom these facts established. Accordingly, the circumstances do not meet this criterion, including those due to non-participation in the consideration of such cases administrative transponder and prove challenging subject again on common grounds.
Constitutional and legal meaning of prejudice revealed by the Russian Constitutional Court in its judgment of 21.12.2011, the number 30-P as follows:
- "Have prejudicial ... are the actual circumstances, when ... ... consider the question of the rights and obligations of that person, the legal status of which has already been determined prior judicial act";

- "actual facts established by a legally effective court act ... by themselves do not predetermine the Court's findings of guilt [person], which is established on the basis of the totality of the evidence, including not investigated in the proceedings ... the case evidence, to be considered in the set ... law procedures, that in the future may lead to a revision ... case on newly discovered facts ";

- "... the recognition prejudicial factual circumstances established by a legally effective judicial decision ... may not prevent the consideration of the case ... on the basis of the presumption of innocence person ... which can be rebutted only by means of the procedures provided for by law ...".
As rightly pointed out by the Plenum of the Supreme Court in para. 12 of the Ordinance of 06/27/2013 number 21 "On application by the courts of general jurisdiction for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and the Protocols thereto" provisions of the Convention and its Protocols in by virtue of paragraph 1 of article 31 of the Vienna Convention shall be subject to systematic interpretation. Therefore, the need to comply with reasonable terms of proceedings can not justify the restriction of other rights provided for in Article 6 of the Convention (eg the right to procedural equality of the parties in the trial; the accused's right to ask a question witnesses against him). Therefore, the court should not be under the pretext of compliance with reasonable deadlines proceedings refuse to study the evidence needed for a full and fair settlement of the case, and to ensure procedural equality of the parties.
Similarly, a reference to the Court of First Instance need to follow the requirement of compulsory judicial decisions can not justify the denial of the examination of evidence necessary for a full and impartial resolution of the case, and to ensure procedural equality of the parties.
Even if the relevant judicial decisions are among the relevance or admissibility of evidence (though this decision is not automatic, but because of the requirements h. 3 of Art. 84 of the Russian Federation shall be subject to the justification of the court CAS), they are due to h. 2 tablespoons. CAS 84 Russian Federation, as well as all other evidence, the court does not have to pre-determined force. Accordingly, their presence does not release the court from assessing the relevance, admissibility and reliability of all other evidence and reflection in dealing with evidence of evaluation results indicating the reasons for which some evidence taken as a means to justify the conclusions of the court, other evidence rejected by the court, and the grounds on which one preferred to evidence others (ch. 8 v. 84 CAS RF). These requirements are fulfilled by the trial court was not. In violation hours. 1 and 3 tbsp. 84 CAS Russian court did not appreciate the relevance, admissibility, reliability of each evidence separately, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence and the relationship as a whole and not to provide a comprehensive, complete, objective and immediate investigation of existing evidence in an administrative case.
Strict adherence to the rules of administrative proceedings in no way detracts from the role of justice in that it allows the court to establish the circumstances, correspond to reality, as required by the hour. 4 Art. CAS 84 Russian Federation, to take a decision, disagreed with the decision taken earlier court order. It does not contradict the requirement for mandatory judicial decisions as set out in Art. 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law of 31.12.1996, № 1-FKZ, as the decision establishing the circumstances, correspond to reality, may lead to the revision of the previously discussed the case on newly discovered circumstances.
The information about the basic beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses draw attention to the fact that believers treat other people the way they would like to be treated themselves with them (Matthew 7:12), and adhere to the principles of peace (Volume 1, LD . 119). State religious examination confirmed the absence of doctrinal documents of Jehovah's Witnesses calls for violent change of the constitutional order, violation of the constitutional order, incitement to violence, incitement to social, racial, national and religious hatred, commit other illegal acts (Volume 6, LD 131 ). Without following established practice, the use of anti-extremist legislation, the Court of First Instance did not assess any creed, any targets religious organizations, including the fact that in itself its creed does not contain listed in the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" signs of extremism, not calls for extremist activities and that the religious organization is not intended to extremist activities.
Such an approach is not the right, as the Supreme Court earlier ruling dated 19.06.2013, the number 67 APG13-7 against a religious group "Elle Ayat" pointed out: "In making this decision the court did not assess the fact that the very own faith , professed by a group of citizens on the territory of the Novosibirsk region, does not contain listed in the Federal law of July 25, 2002 № 114-FZ of extremism, not calls for extremist action . From this it follows that the court decision on the recognition of the activities of extremist religious groups not based on the materials of the case, and therefore subject to cancellation with the imposition of a new court decision to dismiss the said application "- and in certain of 27.07.2010, the number 21 -G10-2 in respect of the public organization "Council of elders of the Balkar people CBD" stated the legal position that the "prohibition of the activity of a public association may concern only those associations, goals or actions directed toward a violent th change of the constitutional system and violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, the establishment of armed units, the incitement of social, racial, national and religious hatred (Part 5 of Article 13 of the Constitution). "
Reputation Jehovah's Witnesses as a peaceful people showing love for others and respect the values of a democratic society, unfairly ignored by the trial court, as she testified about the principled position of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is incompatible with the implementation of extremism. Liquidation of a religious organization in the absence of due diligence on the circumstances of the illegal persecution of religious organizations and believers appropriate denomination has all the attributes of political repression.
According to Art. 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said in her rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed. Therefore, politically motivated persecution is illegal.
In its judgment of 14.06.2016 in the case of "Merabishvili (Merabishvili) against Georgia" (complaint № 72508/13, §100) The European Court of Human Rights declared: - "As stipulated in the previous legal positions Court, the whole structure of the Convention is based on the the general assumption that public authorities in the Member States act in good faith. At the same time, any public policy or the individual measure may have "hidden agendas", and the presumption of good faith is rebuttable. At the same time, the applicant, who claims that his rights and freedoms are limited by improper motives, must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the real aim of the authorities at odds with the declared or that which can be reasonably inferred from the context. The mere suspicion that the authorities used their powers for some other purpose in relation to those defined in the Convention is not sufficient to prove the violation of Article 18 of the Convention (see. Judgment in the case, "Khodorkovsky ..." cited above, § 255) ".
Evidence of such political repression directed against the Jehovah's Witnesses, are irrefutable.

a) Evidence based on empirical data and political context

Jehovah's Witnesses have been the target of harsh political repression in the days of the grim era purges, starting from 1948 until the fall of communism.
For example, the note number 877-A / OM chairman of the KGB Yu. V. Andropova General Secretary of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev, "Report on the work of the 1980 Committee for State Security" on 31.03.1981 was confirmed the above circumstances and provides the following information: "eliminate extremist groups of the sect" Jehovah's Witnesses ". Opened and eliminated by churchmen and sect 6 illegal printing presses, of printed dots 19, 30 terminal stations, warehouses, and typesetting bookbinding shops " [1] (42, 173 LD, 177).
A few years later, the RSFSR Law "On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repressions" [2] of 18.10.1991 № 1761-1 and of Presidential Decree "On measures for the rehabilitation of the clergy and the faithful who have been victims of unfounded repression" from 14.03.1996, the number 378 confirmed that during the years of Soviet believers, Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly prosecuted and have been rehabilitated as victims of political repression.
So Law of the RSFSR of 18.10.1991 № 1761-1 stated that during the years of Soviet rule, millions of people have been victims of arbitrariness of the totalitarian state, were persecuted for their religious beliefs. The law condemns many years of terror and mass persecution of his people as incompatible with the idea of law and justice, he expressed deep sympathy for the victims of unjustified repression, their relatives and friends and said continued effort to ensure real guarantees of the rule of law and human rights. Article 5 of the Law exonerated those convicted of "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda; dissemination of false fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system; a violation of the separation of church law and state and school from church "- which is most often charged with Jehovah's Witnesses. A Presidential Decree of 14.03.1996, the number 378 condemned the "long-term terror unleashed by the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet regime against the clergy and the faithful of all religions."
Presidential Decree of 14.03.1996, the number 378 ordered the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation together with the FSB of Russia, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation to carry out the rehabilitation of Russian citizens who were wrongly accused of political, public and criminal offenses, deprived of freedom, subjected to other deprivations and restrictions of rights in because of their religious activities and beliefs, and laid it upon the Government of the Russian Federation and other federal executive bodies, executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and bodies of local self a systematic way the obligation to provide assistance to those who believe in the restoration of religious buildings, the return of property seized from churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship. Thus, since by virtue of para. 1 of the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice, approved by Presidential Decree of 13.10.2004, № 1313 Russian Ministry of Justice is a federal body of executive power, it is a federal executive authority was obliged to contribute to the rehabilitation of Jehovah's Witnesses .
However, instead of continuing the state policy aimed at the rehabilitation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the authorities once again staged a vast campaign of repression in order to prohibit their religious activities.
This is done due to the fact that one of the methods of political repression is still hanging on the followers of Jehovah's Witnesses religious extremists shortcut to prosecute individual believers, business interruption, their associations and eliminate the possibility of distribution of religious literature.
During the last twenty years, Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia in general, and religious organizations, in particular, once again faced with the same deprivation and restriction of the rights and freedoms of imaginary motive of social danger, the danger to the state system based on religious grounds. Factual circumstances indicate that the post-Soviet political repression measures referred to above shall continue to apply to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the competent authorities do nothing. They do not do due diligence on the causes and conditions in which Jehovah's Witnesses continue to apply the label of extremism pursued by individual believers, liquidated religious organizations, which create obstacles to the dissemination of religious literature.
The authorities could not ignore the degrading and arbitrary nature of the relationship to the faithful as the prevention of such violations were received from various sources and officials. So, 20.01.2010, tens of human rights activists, including members of the Expert Council under the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, the Presidential Council for the Promotion of Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights, "Memorial" et al., Published an open statement " persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia rehabilitated again being persecuted. " It stated: "Jehovah's Witnesses have been the victims of state violence and crime in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Thousands of families Soviet state subjected exile in Siberia and Kazakhstan, many believers were arrested and passed through the camps for belonging to a "fanatical anti-Soviet sect." After the adoption in 1991 of the Federal Law "On the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression" Jehovah's Witnesses have been rehabilitated. The law declared judicial and extrajudicial persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses arbitrariness of the totalitarian state. The law is not canceled. But the faithful, many of whom have identity rehabilitated, again dragged into court. " Human rights activists called on to use all available legal options to stop the massacre of the faithful citizens of Russia, act as a guarantor of their religious freedom, in order to appeal supervisory unjust court decisions against Jehovah's Witnesses make an effort to end the state of persecution of religious minorities (42, LD 153 -158).
22.10.2012 The opening of the appeal of the Moscow Helsinki Group and other human rights defenders showed that only believers persecuted for their faith. It contained a request to protect the constitutional right to freedom of religion and equality of religious associations before the law and to take measures to restore the rights of Russian citizens are being persecuted for their religious beliefs (42, LD 159-159-161).
02.10.2012, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called on the Russian authorities to "continue not to apply the law" On combating extremist activity "to any religious groups, particularly Jehovah's Witnesses" (para. 25.31 of resolution 1896 (2012), Volume 42 LD 162).
On the UN Human Rights Committee in the concluding observations on the seventh periodic report in respect of the Russian Federation, published 03/31/2015, at expressed concern about numerous reports that the law "On Countering Extremist Activity" are increasingly used to limit freedom of religion, including witnesses (Sec. 20) ^{^[3]} . And according to "judicial review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation» № 1 (2015), approved by 4.3.2015, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, the legal position formulated by the UN Human Rights Committee must take into account the resolution of specific cases (42, l. d. 163-164).
Statements by the Helsinki Commission on 28.03.2017, at the European Union's ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia (the OSCE Permanent Council №1139 from 03.30.2017 city), three Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights from 04.04.2017, the submitted court during the hearing, contain clear and unequivocal appeal to the Russian authorities to fulfill their international obligations on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly (42, LD 165-172). In addition, the Internet has created many new video-known public and political figures from around the world, negatively assessed the use of anti-extremism legislation to Jehovah's Witnesses, including the French State Council member, former director of civil liberties in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of France Jean-Marie Delarue, former Attorney General of Spain Consuelo Madrigal, representative of Great Britain at the Venice Commission Richard Clayton, the OSCE representative on combating rasi mu, xenophobia and discrimination Massimo Introvigne, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, Heiner Bielefeldt, and others. For example, a teacher of canon law at the University Rey Juan Carlos (Spain) Mercedes Murillo Muñoz noted that the introduction of duty with the Witnesses allows you to see - they are "very good people, never created difficulties in cooperation. The only "extremist activity", I saw Jehovah's Witnesses - this is their extreme kindness and courtesy. In Spain, their legal status was approved many years ago, they found a well-known religion ... Our country has never been grounds for lawsuits, complaints or accusations in this group because of some of its activities that could be regarded as an extremist or illegal. " Taking this into account, as well as the norms and principles of international law, Mrs. Muñoz, he commended the Russian authorities as an attempt to "go beyond the law, to use the law for other purposes."
But no action of any court or other government bodies had been taken. Thus, in the present case the State authorities and the court clearly resisting repeated calls for religious organizations, the public and even some senior government officials about the objective and thorough investigation of the causes of unjustified use of Jehovah's Witnesses on countering extremist activity legislation. Therefore, in the present case, it can be argued that apply to a religious organization measures are not a means to a legitimate response to her behavior, but a means of deliberate political persecution.
In light of the empirical data, the authorities were thus well aware of the unfair treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in the days of persecution grim era, when the authorities have implemented "hidden agendas" for the disposal and destruction of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The authorities' behavior is now similar to the political repression of the past and therefore unforgivable, as the authorities can not ignore the highly illegal nature of their violations. Therefore, any act or omission, it is assumed that such religious persecution continued, carried out with the full understanding and intention to illegally suppress these believers and humiliate their dignity.

b) Evidence based on vague and arbitrary use of assessment of the term "extremism" as a means to ban Jehovah's Witnesses

State authorities have resorted to the use of the term "extremism" in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they are well aware that such a thing in any case does not apply to them.
Outlining the court's position on the case, the administrative defendant in their observations drew the court's attention to the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 15.06.2001 that defines extremism as an act aimed at the forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power, as well as forcible change of the constitutional order of the state, as well as a violent encroachment upon public security, including the organization of the above purposes of illegal armed formation or participation e in them, criminally prosecuted in accordance with national legislation.
In this regard, Jehovah's Witnesses are known throughout the world for its peaceful attitude. Even their most critically-minded opponents can not deny their neutral stance in the political and military affairs, which cost them thousands of lives in military conflicts during the XX century.
As clearly stated by the European Court of Human Rights, "a well known fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious group that adheres to pacifism" (among other things, § 42 Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice "Flimmenos (Thlimmenos) against Greece"). "It is a religious group that has long been active in the world, which is also well established in the country and, therefore, is well known to the competent authorities» (§ 98 of the European Court judgment in the case "Religious Society of Jehovah's Witnesses and others (Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others ) against Austria "). Their members "hold a comprehensive set of rules of conduct, covering many aspects of everyday life" (in "N. The against Sweden» (N. v. Sweden), the application number 10410/83, Decisions and Reports 40 (Decisions and Reports 40) (1985 ), 203 (207)). "Jehovah's Witnesses [are] religious group whose beliefs include the conviction of unacceptability of service in the military structures, even if such service is not associated with carrying a weapon. In view of this from the European Court has no reason to doubt that the applicant's objection to military service was motivated by his deep religious beliefs, which were in a state of serious and insurmountable conflict with his duty in this respect "(see. § 111 Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice" Bayatyan (Bayatyan) against Armenia, "the complaint № 23459/03, ECHR 2011).
The authorities do not have the right to ignore these facts about Jehovah's Witnesses, whose activity is known to them for decades. Thus, they intentionally used the wrong definition of extremism in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, ignoring this clear definition.
In fact, did not agree with the specified position, the court of first instance on page 33 of the decision to seek a clarification given by the Russian Constitutional Court ruling dated 07.02.2013, № 1053-O, that the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and extremism (concluded June 15, 2001) shall not prevent States parties to provide in their legislation provisions on a broad interpretation of extremism and obliges them to take such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, in Oblas five national legislation to ensure that terrorism, separatism and extremism under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of exclusively political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature (Paragraph 2 of Article 1, article 3). The need for legislative restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association for the purpose of fighting extremism and draws attention to the Resolution of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly 1344 (2003) "The threat to democracy by extremist parties and movements in Europe."
Indeed, said the PACE Resolution 1344 (2003) provides a wider definition of extremist activity. At the same time, given explanation does not mean that they justify not only a broad interpretation of extremism than it is given in the Shanghai Convention and complete blur meaning of this term. Thus, according to this resolution, "extremism is a form of political activity, either explicitly or subtly denies the principles of parliamentary democracy and is based on the ideology and practice of intolerance, exclusion, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and ultra-nationalism." PACE recognizes that some extremist groups "do not preach violence", but "a danger to all democratic states in the" what "they create a climate conducive to increased violence. This creates a direct threat to the constitutional order and freedom, is an indirect risk of distortion of norms of political life. "
It is clear that Jehovah does not apply to the Witnesses. They not only do not practice violence, but did not incite violence. There are no facts to argue that the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses, at least in some parts of Russia favored an increase in violence, poses a threat to the constitutional order, etc. At the hearing of the administrative claimant acknowledged that it is not a fact of the presence of violations of Jehovah's Witnesses public order under the influence of read literature of Jehovah's Witnesses. On the question of the representative of a religious organization: "You said that the Management Center creates the threat of public disorder. Do violations of Jehovah's Witnesses public order if there are facts or recorded under the influence of read literature of Jehovah's Witnesses ", - the representative of the administrative claimant explained:" I have no such facts "(page 77 of the trial transcript).
Jehovah's Witnesses do not carry out political activities, and adhere to the principles of political neutrality. Jehovah's Witnesses do not impinge on the democratic values, but on the contrary, their advocacy has allowed the highest courts to work out in the case law who apply for the modern understanding of democratic rights and freedoms. Jehovah's Witnesses do not practice exclusion, but open to everyone: everyone can talk to them about their professed creed, anyone can visit their worship without fear of manifestation to them of any intolerance, xenophobia, ethnic, racial or other discrimination. Therefore, PACE Resolution 1896 (2012) directly comes from the fact that the law on countering extremist activity does not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses.
It is true that the PACE called on national governments - the Council of Europe member states to provide in their legislation for the possibility of restricting freedom of expression, assembly and association for the purpose of fighting extremism. "However - continues the text of this resolution - any such measures must comply with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights." PACE elaborated these measures: effective punishment if there is proven evidence of damage (such facts are not present); proportionate and operate as a deterrent punishment for public calls for violence, discrimination and racial intolerance (the Witnesses such calls are not permitted); measures to suspension or termination of public funding organizations, condone extremism (no indulgence, no public funding). The latter measure PACE formulated as follows: "in the event of an emergency - on the dissolution action of extremist parties and movements. They are used only when there is a threat to the constitutional order of the country and always in accordance with the constitution and laws of the country. " Jehovah's Witnesses case clearly does not fall under this definition. Jehovah's Witnesses have long existed in all states - the Council of Europe, and their activities have not had any threats to the constitutional order any of them. Jehovah's Witnesses organization in the country - it is not an emergency. Finally, PACE emphasizes the principle of the rule of law in the application of the last resort.
The contested decision does not meet this principle. In the ruling dated 02.07.2013, № 1053-On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that, "In applying the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of the Federal Law" On Countering Extremist Activity ", courts must proceed from the fact that the obligatory indication of the said varieties of extremism ( extreme materials) is the apparent contradiction or veiled appropriate action (documents) constitutional prohibitions excitation hatred and hostility, and promotion of kindling discord social, racial, religious or linguistic excellence, the availability of which should be determined by taking into account all relevant circumstances of each case (form and content of the activity or the information to their destination and goal orientation, socio-political context, there is a real threat posed by including calls to unlawful attacks on constitutionally protected values, justification or justification they occurred, and the like); limit by anti-extremist legislation freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of speech and the right to impart information should not take place in respect of any activities or information on the sole ground that they do not fit the generally accepted ideas are not consistent with established traditional views and opinions, conflict with the moral and ethical and (or) religious preferences otherwise would mean deviation of the constitutional requirements necessary, commensurate ty and justice, human rights and freedoms restrictions and citizens, which, within the meaning of the legal position, expressed by the Constitutional Court in several decisions, remain in force, drawn, as it follows from Articles 18, 19 (part 1) and 55 (part 3 ) of the Constitution, not only to the legislator, but also to the law enforcers, including the courts (judgment of 14 February 2013 № 4-P; determining from April 2, 2009 № 484-OP, from March 5, 2013 № 323 Oh et al.). "
However, while the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, referring to the conditions of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity", uses the wording "courts are obliged", the Supreme Court itself has not fulfilled this obligation, and does not inspected the order, this duty by the courts was whether the application, in which he referred to the decision.
In the ruling dated 16.07.2015, the number 1787 on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that it is a test based on Jehovah's Witnesses should exercise general jurisdiction courts. But the court disregarded the fact that virtually none of the material of Jehovah's Witnesses as extremist, has not passed the said examination.
The Court of First Instance pointed out in the Decision that the provisions of Articles 18, 19 and paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also does not prevent the ban by law any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, if this is necessary for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public smacking order and the general welfare in a democratic society (page 33 of the judgment).
At the same time, the Plenum of the Supreme Court in n. P. 7, 8 of the Regulation "On judicial practice in criminal cases involving crimes of an extremist nature" dated 26.06.2011, the number 11 explained that under the actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity, it should be understood, in particular, the statements justifying and (or) assert the necessity of genocide, mass repressions and deportations, committing other illegal acts, including the use of violence against members of any nation, race, adherents of a particular religion and other groups of individuals. Criticism of religious associations, religious beliefs, religious practice itself should not be regarded as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. Is not inciting hatred or hostility, and humiliation of human dignity, the statement of judgment and reasoning, using the facts of interethnic, interfaith or other social relations in the scientific and political debate and the texts and were not intended to incite hatred or enmity, as well as to humiliate the dignity of man or group of persons on the grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, religion, membership of a particular social group.
Therefore, the trial court should lead to specific publications of Jehovah's Witnesses specific statements justifying, for example, the need for the deportation of a group of persons, etc. The absence of such quotations in the Decision indicates, first of all, that the grounds for the restrictions of the rights and freedoms of the Jehovah's Witnesses were not available.
In the judgment, the Court of First Instance did not lead the arguments to refute the assertion of the administrative defendant that in fact, the decision of the federal courts as extremist publications of Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow the above explanations neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Article 3.1 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" dated 25.07.2002 № 114-FZ provides that the Bible, the Koran, and Tanah Gandzhur, their contents and excerpts from them may not be recognized as extremist materials. However, Jehovah's Witnesses publications, recognizing them as extremist, the courts ignored the fact that they have actually assessed the content of the Bible and quotes from it. This argument of the defendant administrative Court of First Instance also failed to disprove.
The Court of First Instance did not take into account that the vast majority of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses and many of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses were recognized as extremist before the explanations given above, it was clarified the concept of "extremist activities." Therefore, the position expressed by the Court that the relevant court rulings prove the exercise of religious organization "extremist activity" does not meet the criteria of legality. In fact, religious organizations do not apply the law in force at the time of consideration of the case, and the traditions of its erroneous interpretation, which recognizes the need to eliminate the Plenum of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the President.

c) Evidence based on the arbitrary nature of the behavior of law enforcement agencies

In its judgment of 14.06.2016 in the case of "Merabishvili (Merabishvili) against Georgia" (complaint № 72508/13) the European Court of Human Rights found that when public authorities clearly resist the repeated calls of the applicant, the public and even some senior government officials about an objective and thorough investigation, it can be argued that the applicant applied to the measures are not a means to a legitimate response to his behavior, but a means of political persecution.
Religious organization in the court of first instance has led evidence that similar circumstances exist in the present case, as the state authorities have not taken measures to prove the absurdity of the accusations of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist activity as dogma of the religion repugnant genocide, mass repression, deportation, illegal actions and violence against any people. The public authorities have not taken measures to implement an objective and thorough investigation into the facts of falsification of evidence by the toss of publications deemed extremist, individual believers, in the place of worship of believers, as well as by the false testimony of persons accused of believers in the dissemination of publications included in the federal list of extremist materials.
Objection to the trial court on the item contained in only one paragraph: "Disagreement administrative defendant with an estimate of the content of individual information and other materials deemed extremist, based on the presence of various expert opinions with different conclusions, does not refute the previously established in the courts of extremist activity facts and recognition of specific extremist materials. None of the materials referred to in the objections, including printed publications, is not excluded from the federal list of extremist materials "(page 38 of the judgment).
This position of the court is, at least, puzzling. After all, the materials were removed from the federal list of extremist materials, they should appeal against the persons involved in the case and is, above all, the prosecuting authorities or bodies of Russian Ministry of Justice, and therefore, the court had to check the validity of the reasons why the relevant decisions they are not subject to appeal.
If the court comes from the fact that the appeal should have been religious organization, it means that the court recognizes the religious organizations the right to appeal, therefore, it must also be recognized that all of these decisions are subject to unconditional cancellation is made by the rights and responsibilities of persons not involved in the case.
Finally, opposition to a religious organization with the above judgment is not limited to the presence of motifs of different expert opinions with different conclusions. Even the courts, as is evident from the definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 07.16.2015, № 1787-O were evaluated the same texts of Jehovah's Witnesses in the opposite way, and relevant publications are expected in the Federal List of Extremist Materials was the moment when the Supreme Court eliminated would such a contradiction.
The Court of First Instance did not check the argument of a religious organization that from the beginning it was the Ministry of Justice of Russia through its territorial bodies in conjunction with the authorities of the Russian Federation Prosecutor's Office were both behind the decision to deny a religious organization to participate in appropriate cases on the recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses publications extremist and as extremist organizations, local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses, and for the final decisions of the courts in these cases.
The first decision of the Federal Court on the recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses extremist publications and on liquidation of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses was the decision of the Rostov Regional Court of 11.09.2009 in the case of number 3-1 / 2009, upheld by the Judicial Board on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court from 08.12.2009 № 41-G09-29. To participate in the proceedings as an interested person has been involved, including the Ministry of Justice in the face of Russian territorial body - the General Directorate of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in Rostov region. Russian Ministry of Justice did not require involvement in religious organizations and did not appeal against court decisions on the ground that the right of religious organizations to protection had been violated. The representative of Ministry of Justice of Russia supported the statement of the prosecutor claims, despite the fact that the signs of extremism as they identified the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court, were absent in the activities of local religious organization "Taganrog" Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as in the studied literature. Moreover, the fact that it was decided it is the court's decision, Russian Ministry of Justice has played a prominent role.

- biased behavior of the Ministry of Justice in the production of expert reports

By virtue of paragraphs. 31 para. 7 of the Regulation on the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice of Russia carries out organizational and methodical management of the forensic expert institutions Russian Ministry of Justice. A study of the same Jehovah's Witness literature simultaneously with the proceedings number 3-1 / 2009 the Regional Court was carried out in four forensic expert institutions Russian Ministry of Justice. However, at that time, Russian Ministry of Justice did not provide these institutions a common methodology texts studies on the presence of these extremist statements and to ensure that these studies were carried out in an objective, strictly scientific basis, ensuring the unity of the result.
At the very highest level with the participation of leading experts and scientists, the experience which has reached 55 years, the study of the book "Mankind's Search for God" was made by the State institutions of the Russian Federal Forensic Center at the Ministry of Justice of Russian Federation in the period from 19.06.2009 till 25.02. 2010 on the basis of the determination of 01.01.2009 Samara regional Court. The conclusion of the experts commission № 2015 / 23-2 2757 / 24-2 of 25.02.2010, has 33 sheets a detailed study of the book leaves no doubt about the absence in it of an extremist.
From 13.05.2009 till 25.06.2009, on the basis of the decision of 22.04.2009, the senior investigator of the investigation of particularly important cases of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee under the Russian Prosecutor's Office in Sverdlovsk region publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have been investigated in the Ural regional center of judicial examination of the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice, with the participation of experts and scientists who have professional experience of 45 years. Expert opinion on the materials of the criminal case number 4213 from 25.06.2009, the number 745, 746, 747 / 06-1 is also not revealed in the studied literature, signs of extremism.
From 02.10.2009 till 22.12.2009, the re-examination of the criminal case was carried out in government offices Bryansk forensic laboratories of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Opinion of an expert on the criminal case number 4213 from 22.12.2009, № 1814 / 8-1 / 2, number 330 again positively assessed the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses.
However, in contradiction to these findings state institution Southern Regional Forensic Science Center of the Russian Ministry of Justice has made conclusion of experts from 15.07.2009 № 5679 / 12.1-4, 6101 / 09-2. In this conclusion, the experts expressed their opinions on the question posed by the court: "Does represented (according to the list) Literature signs of incitement to religious hatred (undermining respect and hostility towards other religions); signs of propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of a person on grounds of his religious affiliation or attitude to religion? ". Instead of explicitly state that the question is impossible to answer, as it placed correctly as religious strife is not synonymous with the undermining of respect and animosity towards other religions (eg, criticism), experts have focused simply on finding the criticisms in the literature. The volume of the study each publication was only about 2 pages that clearly calls into question its quality.
It is obvious that any printed text can not simultaneously be an extremist and not be. However, the Russian Ministry of Justice has not taken measures to subordinate organization of the same literature, came to identical conclusions. Russian Ministry of Justice did not provide any of the Rostov Regional Court or higher court information about the incompleteness of the study in the southern regional center of judicial examination, failed to substantiate the need for re-examination, and did not insist on pursuing it. As a result, the relevant cases were simply stopped, and the courts had been provided the opportunity to assess the available evidence focus of Jehovah's Witnesses literature in their entirety.
And such examples can be seen in almost all cases of recognition of extremist literature of Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, having qualified experts, which means that the possibility of having a technical study of texts of Jehovah's Witnesses at the appropriate level, the Russian Ministry of Justice has not taken any measures to protect the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did nothing to stand up for the rights of believers to use the religious literature of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Thus, the Russian Ministry of Justice participated in number 3-1 / 2009 on which the decision of the Rostov Regional Court on 11.09.2009, it was denied recognition as extremist and leaflets "Is it true that God takes care of us?" And the magazine "Watchtower "dated 15.08.2007, and a number of other publications. However, the same Russian Ministry of Justice later did not appeal against any decision of the Pervomaisky district court in Krasnodar on 22.04.2011, recognized as extremist magazine "Watchtower" of 15.08.2007, no decision of the district court of Serov, Sverdlovsk region from 19.02.2016, the , found extremist pamphlet "Is it true that God cares about us?". And this despite the fact that the Russian Ministry of Justice held the position of the impossibility of reviewing the findings entered into legal force of court decisions in all circumstances.
Taking into account all these facts, the presence in the solution of two proposals on the general disagreement with the position of the administrative court of the defendant can not be considered to meet the criteria should assess the parties' submissions. Moreover, the Decision does not pay attention to the key facts of the present case, namely the fact of falsification of evidence and omissions of public authorities, expressing evading inspection of such facts.

- biased behavior of the Ministry of Justice in legal proceedings on the basis of tampering with evidence

The Ministry of Justice of Russia participated for apparently having political motives cases of liquidation of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses at the hearing in which the faithful have stated the facts of falsification of evidence and the results of operational search activities by law enforcement officials, including through the toss believers publications included in the federal list of extremist materials. In the future, 08.02.2017 till 02.27.2017, the Russian Ministry of Justice carried out the inspection of religious organizations in the course of which he also provided information about the facts of falsification. However, with the power to request information in the interagency Russian Ministry of Justice has not taken measures to ensure that these facts have been verified by the authorized persons, and that the results of this were taken into account during the inspection.
He ignored the Russian Ministry of Justice and massively distributed Internet video from surveillance cameras, which show how law enforcement officers and other persons tossed into the venue of Jehovah's Witnesses publications worship included in the federal list of extremist materials.
Administrative defendant not only told the court about these circumstances, [4] , but also presented evidence confirming them [5] . The court fully withdrawn from their checks, despite the fact that at the hearing, it was found lack of administrative plaintiff's evidence of objective fixing or other documented transmission of evidence of Jehovah's Witnesses literature from the list of extremist materials, such as video media, as well as the fact that the administrative claimant I have studied the materials of administrative cases before you contact a lawsuit in court. Responding to questions from representatives of religious organizations: "Does the Russian Ministry of Justice of objective evidence fixing or other documented evidence of transmission of literature from the list of extremist materials by Jehovah's Witnesses citizens ... before how to deal with a claim in court, you have investigated cases of materials ? administrative Offenses ", the representative of the administrative claimant gave negative responses:" no "(page 113 of the court session protocol).
Among other things, without any verification court postponed the arguments in the administrative decision of the claimant that after the issuance of 03.02.2016, the warning new evidence of the presence of signs of extremism directly in the activities within the structure of the organization of local religious organizations (page 30, 31 of the judgment). The Court merely replaced with an administrative lawsuit arguments about bringing some local religious organizations to administrative responsibility under Art. 20.29 of the Administrative Code (due to the fact that the relevant regulations were abolished) the arguments of prosecutors making warnings about the inadmissibility of carrying out extremist activities in the address of a local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Central, Voronezh" (from 11.03.2016 city), local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Snezhnogorsk" (from 17.03.2016) and Local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia "Stavropol Central" (from 04.14.2016 was). But even this court violated the requirements of the rule of law, ignoring contained in para. 34 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from 15.06.2010 № 16 "On the practice of courts of the Russian Federation Law" On mass media "," clarifying that the provisions of paragraph 3 article 8 of the Federal law "On countering extremist activity" implies that may not be recognized as a new fact of the violations that were revealed after the warning, but allowed in the materials distributed earlier this warning . The court did not give any assessment to the fact that, although these warnings and made after 03.02.2016 was, but announced in connection with the events "took place" prior to issuance of the warning of the Prosecutor General: 26.11.2015 and 04.12.2015, the g . Voronezh, 24.01.2016, in Snezhnogorsk, 12.07.2015, in the Stavropol. Especially as not made in respect of an administrative warning the defendant to be checked on a common basis in the order of Art. 84 CAS Code.
For example, in the case there is no evidence of the acquisition, storage, distribution, Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Central, Voronezh" in general any literature. There is no evidence to support the transfer of the authorized bodies of the local religious organization of citizens Bokova AE and Koltakova AB Extremist Materials, instructed them to their storage or distribution. There is no evidence, and the adoption of these citizens of the local religious organization. No data and checked for perjury these persons, though it is known that, for example, Koltakov AB even I never have been a Jehovah's Witness. Thus, the decision of 11.26.2015 and of 04.12.2015, the city of bringing these people to administrative responsibility in no way can be considered as adequate evidence of the need to eliminate 396 religious organizations, regardless of how they assessed the prosecutor.
Similarly, based on the false testimony of a citizen Filippov DV warning to the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Snezhnogorsk" accusing the chairman of the committee AN Eliseev in the spread of 01/24/2016, the citizen DV Filippov brochure "The good news of God" to be verified, including in the circumstances to refute the information. Since the conclusion of the expert number SPI-09/17/1 on the results of psychophysiological research using polygraphs investigated Eliseev Alexey Nikolayevich from 10.04.2017, the concluded that "Eliseev A. has not spread, the 24/01/2016 and 31/01/2016, the Filippov DV Mizyak, Bushuyeva AK and other citizens of the brochure "Good News from God", which is included in the list of extremist materials at: Snezhnogorsk Str. Naval 16/5 "; "Physiological reaction, indicating that A. Eliseev gave false testimony on the above issues, have been identified. " While the veracity of Filippov DV question his behavior itself: for years now this citizen attended the Jehovah's Witnesses worship, not interested in their teachings, but merely carrying out covert filming his visits. His behavior towards believers obviously insincere.
To be checked and the warning issued against the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia "Central city of Stavropol 'in fact, the attraction of 12/07/2015 to administrative responsibility under Art. 20.29 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation citizen Suhoyvanenkova EA Administrative defendant presented not only information that the citizen has no relation to the activities of a local religious organization, but also information about evading the law enforcement agencies of inquiry into their manufacturing counterparts falsified documents by which the prosecutor was trying to cover up a clear warning unfounded.
Does not indicate the presence of new facts and extremist activities specified in the Decision regulations on administrative violations in cases under Art. 20.29 of the Administrative Code. Actually in the Decision and these facts are not disclosed. It mentioned only judicial decisions, and not the circumstances that have been installed in them. And do these regulations, strictly speaking, do not contain the facts and assumptions. In none of these cases the courts did not establish what exactly to whom and under what circumstances transferred the relevant materials. None of these assumptions is not supported by available evidence. In all these cases the toss and libel courts simply adhere to the "presumption of guilt" local religious organizations: if the room where services were held, found prohibited materials, the Court proceeded on the assumption - they kept it local religious organization, precisely for mass distribution purposes; If believers were the documents that they have taken steps to make such publications were not included in these places against their will, the court made a different assumption - publishing deliberately kept as believers have confirmed that they were familiar with the federal list of extremist materials; When questioned in the case of witnesses who profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, the court resorted to speculation - they are trying to shield his fellow believer, in other words, lie, although evidence of untruthfulness of their testimony was not one.
All these factors allow the court to verify the facts of the case and to give them a proper assessment in the light of the principles of "presumption of good faith and reasonableness of actions of subjects of legal relations" and the requirements of the law of the need to check the actions of public bodies. The Russian Supreme Court ruling dated 09.01.2015 in case number 5-KG15-92 outlined the legal position that the "reasonableness and good faith actions of participants of civil relations is assumed (paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the Civil Code). The presumption of good faith and reasonableness of actions of subjects of civil relations suggests that the reverse onus of proof lies on the side that says about it. " The judgment in the case "Tsartsidze and others against Georgia" dated 17.01.2017, the European Court of Human Rights found that both the courts and individual judges of Georgia failed to prevent acts of aggression against the Witnesses as superficial and biased approach to the examination of the facts: "is superficial and one-sided examination of cases multiplied by unconditional trust the testimony of law enforcement officials and unreasonable refusal to pay attention to the applicants, the Court's view, there is nothing else, both in ustitelstvo judges violent actions against the applicants. " Circumstances of the case, confirmed by all the available evidence in the case in their entirety, confirm that the trial court had deliberately not taken into account the legal position.
Thus, having a known fact that no religious organization, nor the faithful of Jehovah's Witnesses do not perform active actions of an extremist, that the courts' decisions on the recognition of the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist stem from the selection of experts who do not have the necessary skills of research and presentation of the results, that the decisions of the courts on the Elimination of local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on falsified evidence, the court not only failed to take measures for the protection of religious organizing and believers, but liquidated religious organization and recognized it as extremist.
Political repression, supported by the court, clearly indicate that the absurd accusation of extremism is not the reason why Jehovah's Witnesses became a target of persecution. Such religious persecution by arbitrary and degrading persecution violates Art. 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention.

II of . Set out in the Decision of the court's conclusions about the presence of a religious organization structural units do not meet the circumstances of the administrative case (p. 3 h. 2, Art. 310 of the RF CAS), and the circumstances of the religious organization and within its structure of local religious organizations of extremist activity is not proven (n . 2 hours. 2 v. 310 CAS RF)

By virtue h. 1 tbsp. 5 CAS RF ability to have procedural rights and bear procedural obligations in administrative proceedings (administrative procedural legal capacity) is recognized equally for all religious organizations, if they are in accordance with this Code and other federal laws have the right to judicial protection of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in the the public sphere.
Item 3 hours. 2 tbsp. 5 CAS RF establishes that the ability to carry out their actions due process rights, including the charging of administrative case management representative and fulfill procedural obligations in administrative proceedings (administrative procedural capacity) owned by religious organizations.
A person against whom a claim for disputes arising out of administrative and other public relations, or in respect of which the administrative claimant exercising control or other public functions, went to court to force h. 4 Art. 38 CAS Russian Federation is the administrative defendant.
As stated hr. 5 v. CAS 54 Russian Federation, administrative cases, organizations can conduct in court the sole organ of the management of the organization or its designees, acting within the powers conferred on them by federal laws and other normative legal acts or constituent documents of the organization, or representatives of the organization.
Part 3 tbsp. 57 CAS RF provides that the powers of heads of organizations acting on behalf of the organizations within the powers provided by federal law, other normative legal acts or constituent documents confirming they represent to the court documents certifying their official position, as well as the constitutive and other documents. On the basis of the Article 6 of the power of attorney on behalf of the organization shall be signed by its head or otherwise authorized by the constituent documents of the face and stamped organization.
In the judgment, the Court found it established "fact that every local religious organization in the manner prescribed by law is registered as a legal entity" and the "absence of the Federal Law" On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations ", article 123 ²⁶ , 123 ²⁷ of the Civil Code the Russian Federation, defining civil-legal status of religious organizations, the definition of the structural unit, as well as non-use of such term in the charter of the Organization in the description of its structure "(page 36 of the judgment) .
And it is consistent with both studied at the court hearing the charter of a religious organization, and with the announcement by the charter of local religious organizations. In addition, it is seen from the Russian Ministry of Justice and specified in the decision information that listed 396 entities registered at different times as independent legal entities for the individual primary state registration number, have their own unique name and different location.
Thus, each of the 396 legal entities to fully apply the provisions of para. 1, Art. 48 of the Civil Code, recognizing that they are not a structural subdivision, and organizations that have separate assets and meet them on their obligations, may on its own behalf to acquire and exercise civil rights and civil obligations, sue and be sued in court.
By virtue of para. 1, Art. 53 of the Civil Code a legal entity shall acquire civil rights and assume civil obligations through its bodies acting on its behalf (paragraph 1 of Article 182), in accordance with the law, other legal acts and the foundation documents. The procedure of formation and competence of the legal entity determined by the law and founding document.
Neither the statute of a religious organization, nor the statutes of local religious organizations do not contain provisions allowing the authorities of one of these entities to take actions and make decisions, in virtue of which the rights and obligations of any other persons (eg, decisions on the acquisition and alienation of property, whether money funds or religious literature). Similarly, each of these entities can be sued in court, and their statutes provide that without the power of attorney on their behalf may act strictly certain organs it is the relevant legal entity. The law does not provide for an opportunity to appear in court on behalf of a local religious organization without power of attorney to an authority centralized religious organization and does not allow the relevant power of attorney in place of the authorized body of the local religious organization of the issuing authority of a centralized religious organization. But no power of attorney or other documents concerning the credentials of a centralized religious organization to represent the local religious organization in this administrative case are not available.
Therefore, it is not based on law, not on the factual circumstances of the conclusion of the court that "upon presentation of the authorized official or body of the requirements for the elimination of a centralized religious organization exactly it is in the relevant public legal relations the whole formed by its structure, including its local religious organizations, for which activity, as well as one of them, it can be held responsible in accordance with articles 7 and 9 of the Federal law "On countering extremist activity" "(with root page 36 of the judgment).
Completely unfounded and is a statement of the court that "according to evidence any activity of local religious organizations included in a single structure, is carried out directly under the control and supervision of the Organization represented on the administrative case" (page 38 of the judgment). In support of its conclusion the Court does not have any such evidence.
Supporting this assertion, the court should have set out in the Decision of each sane case of publications included in the federal list of extremist materials, confirmed by the circumstances evidence showing who, when and under what circumstances, in fact, placed in the right spot the relevant publication who, when, by virtue of any powers of the local religious organization decided this when, in what form, by whom it was carried out the management of this process and the corresponding conductive control in a centralized religious organization.
In itself, the assumption that a centralized religious organization controls the movement of each publication from the publisher to its existing location, looks extremely ridiculous. Letter of the North-West Customs Administration of 28.02.2017, the (Volume 2, ld 112-171) confirms that up to February 2015 were presented to the customs clearance of thousands of publications. Explanations administrative defendant, as well as marking patterns such publications (Volume 23, ld 104-106) suggest that all this literature - personal orders of physical persons - members of religious groups. Any publication of these individuals left in his personal library, which donated them to anyone, which were in the possession of law enforcement officials, ministers of various churches or anti-cult organizations, as it is simply destroyed - to have this information is absolutely impossible.
In fact, the circumstances indicate that the publications included in the federal list of extremist materials, or did not get into the building of Jehovah's Witnesses worship at all or got there with the direct involvement of law enforcement officers and persons collaborating with them. Available in the case file on-screen representation of images (39, LD 152-158) suggest that such publications at the time of the arrival of law enforcement officers in the place of worship in the town of Maisky in Kabardino-Balkar Republic were absent from the bench on which they appeared only after these employees removed from the premises of all believers and made it impossible videofiksatsiyu they actually laid out the publication. These and other evidence on which the administrative defendant drew the court's attention to their observations and the study of written evidence, but the assessment which the court in the decision not cited, in their totality, undeniably confirm that no religious organization, or local religious organizations of extremist activity not performed. It is important in the body of evidence include not just some evidence in the individual episodes, but all the evidence to assess the situation in Russia as a whole, including video planted the publications included in the federal list of extremist materials in the place of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses. Although the court unreasonably refused to investigate them, they together with all the materials of the administrative case, as well as other evidence, the receipt of which the administrative defendant to petition the court to confirm that religious Jehovah's Witnesses are not the offenders and victims of crime by law enforcement agencies . Especially the evidence refutes that the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses coordinate and direct the activities from which the materials are included in the federal list of extremist materials in the hands of law enforcement officers.
Lacking evidence of coordination by religious organizations the turnover of publications included in the federal list of extremist materials, the court was justified by each organization, some extremist activities it carried out and what the evidence is confirmed. However, the decision to liquidate the 396 legal entities does not have a reasonable basis in this regard.
For example, within the meaning of decisions by the court abolished local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses village. Krasnogvardeiskoe, BIN 1159102088265. In the Unified State Register of Legal Entities in respect of this legal entity 20.04.2015, the entry was made about the legal entity registered in the Republic of Crimea and the territory of the federal city of Sevastopol on the date of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea as a part of education Russian new entities - the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. Prior to re-appropriate the said legal entity included in the structure of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Ukraine. Thus, the legal entity is not created as part of any religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." It has the right to establish other centralized religious organization and enter into its structure or just to get out of the Administrative Center of the structure and act as an autonomous local religious organization. This local religious organization registered a few months after the last of Jehovah's Witnesses literature passed the customs clearance of the Administrative Center, so she did not have even a theoretical possibility to get away from a centralized organization and distribute any literature (and it this is not actually engaged in ). This local religious organization is not subject to liability for extremist activities. It turns out that the motive for its eradication is only a religious and ethnic belonging of itself, that is discrimination.
Another organization, the elimination of which is even more surprising - A local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow, BIN 1157700007189. It was registered 19.05.2015, after the adoption of the Human Rights judgment of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation. " In the said decision (paragraph 120), the Court expressly stated that it can not be a motive for the elimination of the local organization of the activities of the Administrative Center. Again, in respect of the local religious organization is not and can not simply be evidence of its involvement in any extremist activity.
Does not meet the circumstances of the case and the court's conclusion that "for the past seven years annually required by law to establish the facts of extremist activities, including those carried out by its business units" (page 32 of the judgment). First, the law does not allow the falsification of evidence as an acceptable way to achieve the goal. Russia's Supreme Court did not take into account that over the last twenty years, there is evidence of systematic repression against Jehovah's Witnesses by the state, which in the past seven years have also acquired a form of illegal criminal toss prohibited materials believers. Second, the law gives religious organizations the right to a defense, but the religious organization, as established by the court, did not participate in any matter in which she would have been accused of carrying out extremist activities, both directly and through some subdivisions. Third, even the administrative plaintiff accused the religious organizations are not of an active action and inaction. As explained by the representative of the Russian Ministry of Justice at the hearing, at the Russian Ministry of Justice do not have an enforceable court decision, which would have established that the Administrative Center has violated the rights and freedoms of man and citizen on some grounds specified in the Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" ; extremist religious organizations, in her opinion, is that it has not taken any effective measures to curb extremist activities. At the same time, the law does not provide for the possibility of making extremist activity in the form of inaction.
On the question of the representative of a religious organization: "Do you have entered into legal force court decision, which established that the Administrative Center has violated the right to freedom of the individual citizen on some grounds specified in the Federal Law" On Countering Extremist Activity "?" - a representative of the administrative claimant gave a negative answer "no" (page 79 of the court session protocol).
Answering the question of the presiding judge: "What is confirmed that the organization carried out extremist activity?", - the representative of the administrative claimant pointed out: "A religious organization has not taken any effective measures to curb this activity ..." (page 68 of the trial transcript). On the question of the presiding judge: "We are talking about that were not accepted in general any steps or measures taken have not been sufficient?", - the representative of the administrative claimant explained: "In our opinion, the measures taken are insufficient to suppress local religious organizations such activities "(pages 169, 170 of the trial transcript). Answering the question of the presiding judge: "What kind of provisions of Article 1 we say, figuring out the objective side of an act or omission of an administrative defendant?", - the representative of the Russian Ministry of Justice revealed: "In this case, the administrative defendant, in our opinion, are not taken effective action to stop the mass dissemination of knowingly extremist materials. " On the subsequent question of the presiding judge: "Where the law you point to the adoption of effective measures? Which indicates that the failure to take effective action - is the kind of extremist activity ", - the representative of the administrative claimant pointed:" This is the definition of article 1 of the Act does not contain "(page 171 of the trial transcript).
A significant part of the solution to addressing the enumerated reasons Court of Justice of Russia without the results of verification of those arguments at the hearing. So, for example, provides information that religious organizations have the customs clearance of publication, the names of which are currently available on the federal list of extremist materials, as well as the fact that religious organizations transfer funds to local religious organizations, which are now recognized as extremist (page 29 of the judgment). However, for these arguments in the hearing confirmed that the above actions of the religious organization was no violation on countering extremist activity legislation.
"On Countering Extremist Activity" paragraph of the fourteenth paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Federal law prohibited the financing of extremist activities or other assistance in their organization, preparation and implementation, including through the provision of training, printing and logistics, telephone and other means of communication or provision information services.
Russian Ministry of Justice has presented information that centralized religious organization donated funds to local religious organizations. These religious organizations were subsequently found to be extremist. However, the administrative claimant did not submit to the court the relevant contracts donations and decisions of the Administrative Center of the donation, which indicated that the donation of funds was carried out for the construction of houses of worship, to the victims of natural disasters. Russian Ministry of Justice acknowledged in court that he had no information that the donated funds were spent on extremist activities. In this regard, the plaintiff's allegations of administrative violations of the Administrative Center of this provision are unproven.
Answering the question of the presiding judge: "What are the details of the facts you are ready to submit to the court to make sure that indeed after the transferred money, the mass distribution of knowingly extremist materials or manufactured them or have become store that money was used on these acts . The law says the financing of specific actions, then they should be ", - the representative of the administrative claimant explained:" I have no such information "(page 123, 124 of the trial transcript).
Eleventh paragraph of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" prohibits the mass dissemination of knowingly extremist materials, as well as their production or storage for the purpose of mass distribution. Certain provisions of the "knowingly" violation gives offsetting duties imposed on Russian Ministry of Justice by virtue of Art. 13 of the Act and the regulations of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, approved by Presidential Decree of 13.10.2004, № 1313, placing the federal list of extremist materials in the information and telecommunication network Internet on its website and its official publication in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".
from 28.02.2017, the (Volume 2, 112-171 cfs) of the North-West Customs Administration letter reveals that the Administrative Center officially presented to the customs clearance received in his address book "Learning in the Theocratic Ministry School." Customs authorities have not provided the Administrative Center for information about the presence of any prohibitions against these books, and 09.02.2015, the books were imported into the territory of the Russian Federation. From the administrative defendant should be self-explanatory that the books have been ordered from the publisher's specific individuals - members of religious groups, so they are immediately transferred to the addresses indicated on the respective packages editions.
In court, it was found that, as at the time of importation, and at the time of the transfer of these books to individuals, order them, they were not included in the federal list of extremist materials. As confirmation screen copy of the official site of "Rossiyskaya Gazeta» (https://rg.ru/2015/03/30/spisok-dok.html), information on the inclusion of the aforementioned publications in the federal list of extremist materials on the presented Russian Ministry of Justice list was published in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" of 30.03.2015, the (federal issue №6636 (65)). Russian Ministry of Justice failed to provide information that the official website of Ministry of Justice of Russia information on this printed edition appeared earlier than when updating the federal list of extremist materials 03.13.2015 At last, the definition of the Belgorod Regional Court dated 30.07.2015, the (Volume 22 LD 38) confirmed that the recognition of the book "Learning in the theocratic ministry school," a religious organization is recognized only 02/18/2015 in relation to other publications even administrative defendant admitted that their inclusion in the federal list of extremist mother als happened after customs clearance. Thus, the Administrative Center did not carry out mass distribution of knowingly extremist materials, as well as their production or storage for the purpose of mass distribution.
Among others mentioned in the Decision on the existence of some publications of Jehovah's Witnesses here jw.org website. Indeed, in some publications published before the inclusion of the site on the federal list of extremist materials, the site mentioned. However, in the Decision is not given the facts that such literature import religious organization after such inclusion, especially after the issuance of warnings to religious organizations. In such circumstances the court hearing has not been established. After the warning has not revealed any new fact, indicates the presence of extremism in the administrative activities of the defendant.
Thus, in the vast majority of the liquidated legal entities, in the hundreds, there is no evidence they have committed extremist activity, and in relation to their small numbers, there are only a few falsified evidence, the accuracy of which is refuted by the totality of evidence. Therefore, the decision illegally liquidated independent legal entities, registered by the authorized federal bodies of state power in the form of religious organizations in the activities which are no facts of extremism, both generally and those with the presence of that federal law relates the possibility of their liquidation.

DECISION VIOLATES THE RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAINTIFF AND OTHER PERSONS

III of . Violation of the rights protected by the norms of Russian legislation

Adopted in the absence of objective verification of the peaceful activities of Jehovah's Witnesses The decision to liquidate a religious organization and within its structure of local religious organizations, which means a total ban their activities on pain of criminal prosecution, violates the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of all of these entities and their participants, including the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of association, the inviolability of property. Also, it does not meet the provisions of the following normative-legal acts of the Russian.
Under Art. 28 of the Russian Constitution, everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion or no religion, to freely choose, possess and disseminate religious and other convictions and act in accordance with them.
According to the legal position of the Constitutional Court of "freedom of conscience and religion, which is realized in the form of association of followers of a doctrine for joint prayers and religious ceremonies and other activities, is inextricably linked with other rights and freedoms enshrined by the Constitution, in particular articles 27 , 29, 30 and 31, especially with the right of association and the right to freedom of assembly which, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 18 May 2012 12-P, is a fundamental and indispensable element of the legal status of the individual in the Russian Federation as a democratic and legal state, which has the obligation to protect, including the judiciary, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Articles 1 and 64; Article 45, part 1, article 46 of the Constitution) "(Decree of 05.12.2012, № 30-P).
Supreme Court, overriding held judgments about bringing one of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses to administrative responsibility, drew attention to the fact that: "The normative procedure for exercising the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, guaranteed each article 28 of the Constitution requires correlating with the order of realization of other constitutional rights and obligation as a legislator and enforcer, including the court, to ensure a reasonable balance between the interests of believers and Reli NRIs associations, on the one hand, and secular political and state institutions - on the other, without encroaching on the very essence of the law and not creating obstacles to its implementation. Freedom of conscience and religion, which is realized in the form of association of followers of a doctrine for joint prayers and religious ceremonies and other activities, is inextricably linked with other rights and freedoms enshrined by the Constitution, particularly the right of association and the right to freedom of assembly which, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of May 18, 2012 № 12-P, is a fundamental and indispensable element of personal legal status STI in the Russian Federation as a democratic and legal state, which has the obligation to protect, including the judiciary, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Article 1 and 64, part 1, article 45, article 46 of the Constitution) "(Decree of 10.04 .2015, № 37-AD15-2, from 04.10.2015, the number 37 AD15-1).
Russia's Supreme Court in its judgment of 12/08/2013 number 11 AD13-7, canceling the judicial decisions of the lower courts and interrupting the proceedings of an administrative offense in connection with the lack of citizen action - Witness of an administrative offense under Art. 20.2 of the Administrative Code, based on the fact that "the Russian Federation Constitution, in Articles 14, 28, proclaims the Russian Federation, a secular state in which no religion may be established as state or obligatory, and religious groups are separate from the state and equal to each other, and - based on the fact that religious freedom is one of the most important forms of spiritual and moral self-identity and the internal affair of each, - guarantees as one of the basic personal (civil) rights sovesem freedom and freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion or no religion, to freely choose, possess and disseminate religious and other convictions and act in accordance with them. The right to freedom of conscience and religion ... can not be limited solely to the space of personal (private) life - getting their implementation in the external sphere, including in the mass collective forms, it objectively becomes very significant public importance that obliges the Russian Federation as the legal and the welfare state (part 1 of article 1, part 1 of article 7 of the Constitution) to ensure neutrality and impartiality, confessing various religions, faiths and beliefs in order to achieve civil peace and harmony, to maintain public order and religious tolerance in society, avoiding arbitrary and unjustified interference in the activities of religious organizations while at the same time - given the secular nature of the Russian state - clericalism of state and public institutions "(The Supreme Court on 08.12.2013 AD13-7 № 11).
During the trial, the court has clarified the position of the plaintiff's administrative, lies in the fact that it just reaches to the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses could only confess individually, deep inside. However, the Court of First Instance by a miscarriage of justice has become an accomplice in an obvious violation of the right to freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Also, the court applied Art. 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity", which provides for the confiscation of the property remaining after satisfaction of creditors recognized extremist religious organization. But the use of such measures to the law-abiding organization of Jehovah's Witnesses violated their right guaranteed by Art. 35 of the Constitution.
Moreover, the charges of a religious organization in extremist activities certainly detract from its respectable reputation and dignity of its members, while the dignity of the individual is protected by virtue of Art. 21 of the Constitution.
While Art. 12 of the RSFSR Law of 18.10.1991, the № 1761-1, establishes that the rehabilitated persons are restored to their lost due to the repression of social and political and civil rights, and Article 16.1 of the Act provides that the rehabilitated persons returning confiscated, seized and has withdrawn another way out of their possession in connection with the repression of the property or its value reimbursed or paid cash compensation, the decision not only does not contribute to the rehabilitation of a religious organization by the withdrawal of charges of extremism, but, with Uchi, continues in respect of its believers and political repression.
Moreover, extremist activity involves the commission of active actions whose aim is to incite racial, ethnic or religious hatred, undermining the security of the Russian Federation and the other purposes specified in Art. 1 of № 114-FL ^{^[6]} . Therefore, the measures and the elimination of extremist recognition enshrined in Art. 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" may be applied only to those religious groups whose activity itself may not last, so this activity is subject to termination. But because such activities or religious organization, or local religious organizations are not involved, the court had no right to remove them.
In the contested decision the court without any justification pointed out that taken by the administrative defendant organizational measures related to the study of the federal list of extremist materials, informing the faithful and local religious organizations on this list, and judicial decisions on the recognition of certain materials extremist, the creation of a special commission, appeal actions and decisions of the various bodies and officials, public statement of his innocence to the facts of extremist activity from 24.02.2017 Mr. ., Can not serve as a legal basis for the rejection of the administrative claim (page 38 of the judgment). However, neither the court nor the Russian Ministry of Justice did not indicate any other measures should be taken religious organization, but not taken to avoid elimination. So, on the question of the representative of a religious organization: "... which, according to the Russian Ministry of Justice, the Administrative Center had to take measures to Russian Ministry of Justice said that this is effective measures to eliminate the causes and conditions?", - the representative of the administrative claimant has repeatedly answered that "indicate the specific measures Russian Ministry of Justice will not be" (page 79 of the trial transcript). It just shows that religious organizations was the victim of politically motivated prosecutions. Since the logic of the court, she was subject to liquidation, regardless of guilt and could not prevent the negative consequences for themselves, regardless of whatever measures are not taken.
RF Constitution in Articles 46, 52, 123 guarantees everyone judicial protection of his rights and freedoms in the implementation of proceedings on the basis of equality of the parties, victims' access to justice and protection of victims of crime, and therefore, including by false testimony in court and falsification evidence of the abuse of power.
Religious organization, as well as believers consistently taken the position that they have been the victim of false or just incompetent expert opinions, testimony of experts, falsified evidence and false testimony of witnesses. But neither the competent authorities nor the court was not taken any steps to verify the circumstances, it was not initiated any criminal proceedings, and no person who is guilty of forgery, is not drawn to the proper responsibility. Supported by the trial court's position that the denunciation by itself, even without any verification, is the basis of a denunciation of the victim of persecution, and that the allegation of falsification of evidence must be proven by the victim of crime, violates the principles of the constitutional order of Russia. This practice was characteristic of the era of political repression, when drawing unfounded denunciations and extremely severe persecution suffered by such denunciations were an integral feature of the Soviet legal policy. But it is unacceptable in a democratic state of law, which is the Russian Federation (Art. 1 of the Constitution).
Anchored Art. Art. 46, 49, 50, 123 of the Constitution of the RF requirements of a fair trial, guaranteed judicial scrutiny of decisions and actions of public authorities and the judicial protection of human rights and freedoms exercised on the basis of equality of the parties, taking into account the presumption of innocence and the inadmissibility of the use of evidence obtained in violation of federal law, as well as general requirements for any procedural decision, which must be lawful, justified and motivated oblige bear enforcement decisions only after examination and refutation of the arguments put forward by the defense; not refute the arguments against the charges can only be interpreted in favor of the accused. Failure to consider and evaluate the reasonableness defense case creates advantages for the prosecution, distorts the content of its obligations under the charges of proof and disproof doubt the guilt of the person, allowing to ignore the data confirming these doubts.
RF Constitution, in particular its Article 21, 33, 45, needs to consider a citizen, not as an object of government activity, but as an equal entity that is likely to defend their rights by all means not prohibited by law, and argue with the state on behalf of any of its organs, involves not only the right apply to the relevant state body or official statement, request or complaint, but also the right to receive this treatment an adequate response.
The lack of real testing applications believers of perjury, falsification of evidence, followed by repressive measures against religious organizations, contrary to the above constitutional provisions.
In addition to the lack of real verification of the relevant circumstances, the court admitted the wrong application of substantive law, is to apply the law, not to be applied (the Federal Law "On Political Parties", "On Public Associations"), and misinterpretation of the law (the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and religious associations "," on Combating extremist activity "CAS Code), including without regard to the legal positions contained in the rulings of the Constitutional Court Rossiys Coy Federation, Plenum of the Supreme Court and the Bureau of the Supreme Court (n. 4 hours. 2 and n. n. 2, 3 h. 3, v. 310 CAS RF).
As recognized by the Court, Art. Art. 7 and 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" provide for the liquidation of a public or religious association or other organization in establishing their activities, including the activities of their regional or other structural subdivisions of the facts of extremism. In this case, the Court agreed, in the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", article 123 ²⁶ , 123 ²⁷ of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, defining the civil-legal status of religious organizations, the definition of the structural unit are absent (page 36 of the judgment).
However, the court declined to recognize the obvious conclusion: defining features of the situation of religious organizations, the current legislation does not call the local religious organization of structural subdivisions of centralized religious organizations and does not provide for the elimination of centralized religious organizations and all within its structure of local religious organizations motivated by a fact-finding extremism in the activities of several local religious organizations belonging to the same page Keturah.
Referring to pages 35, 36 Decisions on the constitutional principles of equality and justice (Part 3 of Article 17, Article 19 and 55 of the Constitution), the Court of First Instance made an erroneous statement that the provisions of Articles 7, 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity "equally apply not only to all the social, religious associations, and other organizations, but also in their structure, despite the fact that these structures are different, the federal law" on public Ob Unity "," On Political Parties "," On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations "and" On non-profit organizations. " In fact, the court ignored the statutory differences of legal status of the various NGOs and religious organizations to apply the provisions of the Unincorporated structural subdivisions of public associations and political parties (article 10 and part of the tenth article 21 of the Federal Law of May 19, 1995 № 82-FZ " on public associations ", paragraph 8 of article 15 of the Federal law of July 11, 2001 № 95-FZ" on political parties "). But such an approach can not agree.
According p. 2 tbsp. 2 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" human and civil rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are regulated by federal law. Laws and other normative legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation and affecting the realization of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, as well as the activities of religious associations must meet the federal law. Therefore, equality would be achieved when it is in the text of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" was pointed out that local religious organizations are the structural units of centralized religious organizations, just as it is directly and unambiguously spelled out in relation to the structures of public associations and political parties.
Moreover, taking into account established principles of equality and fairness of the legal status of the structural subdivisions of political parties and public associations significantly different from that of local religious organizations.
For example, the Federal Law "On political parties" based on the unity of the political party. The Party can not be a local and centralized, including those operating in the territory of one or more of the Russian Federation. Party - is a single association carries out its activity on the whole territory of the Russian Federation (Article 5). All regional, local and primary branches, including the rights of the legal entity itself created by a political party; It also makes decisions about their reorganization and elimination (Nos. "g" p. 26, Article 1). Both the political party and its regional branches and other structural subdivisions (local and primary branches) operate on the basis of a single statute of the political party (p. 1 of Article 21). The party itself decides whether its local and primary branches have legal personality or not (p. 8 of Article 15). In the structural unit of a political party is not possible to get out of its membership and to act on their own or go into the structure of another political party.
This regulation is very different from the legal status of religious communities established in the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations". Unlike political parties, the law does not allow the creation of a single religious organization on a national scale, which itself would have created a regional, local and primary structural units. Religious associations may have a different area of activity: some terrain settlement, the Russian Federation, some of the RF subjects, or to act on the entire territory of the Russian Federation (paragraph 1 of Article 7, paragraph 3 of Article 8, pp 2 and 3 of Article.... eleven). In the religious structure can be religious group (p. 2 of Article 7), local religious organizations (para. 5, Article 11), the centralized religious organization (one or more) and other religious organizations, to create a centralized religious organizations (para. 7 of Article eleven). At the same time, religious groups (p. 2 of Article 7) and local religious organizations (para. 3, Article 27) can not enter into the structure of a centralized religious organization of the same religion. But even if believers create a religious association in the structure to which belongs to some kind of centralized religious organizations, believers themselves decide whether it is a religious group without obtaining legal entity (Article 7) or a local religious organization as a legal entity (p. 1 of article 9). Centralized organization does not have the right to establish any local religious organization or to establish religious
d) Violation of the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 3, 9, 10, 11 of the Convention and Art. 1 Protocol 1 thereto №
group. Nor can it eliminate them (para. 1 of Article 14). Every religious organization has its own rules; activities of the local religious organization on the basis of the statute of a centralized religious organization is not provided by law (para. 1 of Article 10). The law allows religious groups and local religious organizations to get out of the structure of a centralized religious organization, and act autonomously, or go into the structure of a centralized religious organization (Art. 2 para. 5, Article 4). Three or more local religious organizations within the framework of a centralized religious organization, has the right to establish a new centralized religious organization and enter into its structure (p. 2 of Article 9). Thus, it is the non-recognition of the local religious organization of the structural unit status centralized religious organization and is a feature of legal regulation of the activity of religious associations.
The principle of equality and justice is achieved only when there is legal certainty in the status of an association. So with regard to political parties can be no doubt about the status of their business units. The same definition is and the application of Federal Law "On Public Associations", which allows the creation of a legal entity in the form of a branch of the public association, or in the form of independent public associations, including in the form of unions (associations) of public associations (Articles 13, 21, 32). If passed state registration department of the public association, its status obviously clear: it lacks the organizational and possibly property independence, and it makes no sense to challenge his position as a structural unit. If they were created as an independent association, and then created a union or association, their status is also clear: this has not led to the emergence of divisions. In view of this, citizens can foresee the consequences of their behavior and to choose the form of association that suits them. However, the interpretation of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", given by the court of first instance, can not be considered to the same extent predictable.
RF Constitutional Court in its judgment of 05.02.2007 № 2-P explained the contents of the general legal principle of legal certainty, it is assumed that the parties involved must be confident in the immutability of its officially recognized status, acquired rights and obligations.
But the legal independence of local religious association of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Administrative Center has already been confirmed by the Court in paragraph 120 of the Ordinance on the case of "religious association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation." Also, the RF Supreme Court ruling dated 08.12.2009 in case number 41-G09-29 have "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses" Taganrog "are independent organizations." , Based on the fact that "the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Birobidzhan are independent organizations with legal personality" Court of Jewish Autonomous Region, ruling on the definition of 04/07/2017 [7] . Therefore, it is unclear why the Court of First Instance decided to review the status of local religious organizations within the structure of a religious organization, with independent organizations in the structural units of a centralized religious organization.
Trying to give a broad interpretation of the rules of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" to justify the lawfulness of restrictions on the right to freedom of religion and freedom of association, the Court of First Instance did not consider the following.
By virtue of para. 3 of Art. 2 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", nothing in the law on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and religious associations should not be interpreted in the sense of denial or infringement of the rights of man and citizen to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution or deriving from international treaties of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation Russian Federation - a secular state. Religious associations are separated from the state and equal before the law.
As explained by the Russian Constitutional Court in its judgment of 15.12.2004 №18-P, the principle of the secular state and the separation of religious associations from the state means that the state, its agencies and officials, as well as authorities and officials of local self-government has no right to interfere in the legitimate activities of religious associations.
Article 4 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" provides that in accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state government does not interfere in the activities of religious organizations, if it does not contradict this Federal Law and the religious association is created and carries out its activities according to their own hierarchical and institutional structure, select, appoint and replace their personnel in accordance with its own mustache anovleniyam.
In accordance with Art. 15 h. 1 of the Law № 125-FZ of religious organizations operate in accordance with its internal regulations, if they do not contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation, and have the capacity envisaged in their charters.
Prevailing uniformity in the interpretation and application by the courts referred to the rule of law based on the fact that these legal norms, it follows that the state and its organs can not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious association and relationship members of religious associations that have arisen in connection with the formation of a religious association management bodies; internal affairs unit and activities of a religious organization and its members, education authorities of the religious association are outside the competence of the court ^{^[8]} .
Therefore, in this administrative case, the court is not the competent authority in resolving issues unit of religious organizations. The court is obliged to respect the internal regulations of religious organizations, including fixed n. 2 The provisions of the Administrative Center "On establishing the procedure for issuing a document confirming entry into the center of the structure, approval of the charter, changes and additions to the charter of a religious organization, a member of the central structure, appointment and termination office of members of its regulatory body, the implementation of relations with religious associations affiliated to the center "structure, approved by 30.04.1999, the (volume 24, LD . 120-121). According to the Regulation Administrative Center relationship with religious associations built on the basis of their legal independence and canonical subordination center. And since neither the law nor the constituent documents of religious organizations and local religious organizations does not consider the relevant local religious organizations as a division of a religious organization, the court had no right to do the opposite conclusion.
This error affected the fact that the Court of a violation of procedural rules (p. 4 h. 2, Art. 310 of the CAS Code), which consists in making a court decision on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in the administrative case. As previously indicated, a religious organization does not have the right to submit to the administrative proceedings of Jehovah's Witnesses and local religious organizations whose rights, including the right to freedom of religion and association were unquestionably violated. By n. 4 h. 1 tbsp. 310 CAS Russian Federation on the basis of the decision of the trial court shall be subject to unconditional cancellation.

IV of . Violation of the rights protected by international law

By virtue h. 4 Art. 15 of the Constitution, ch. 4, Art. CAS 15 Russian Federation, Art. 1 of the Federal Law of 30.03.1998 number 54-FZ "On ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols" in the present case shall be subject to the application of the relevant provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter - the Convention), and decisions European Court of human Rights, which are appropriate interpretation of the Convention ^{^[9]} . The relevant rules of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) must also be taken into account.
As a result of the liquidation of religious organizations and the recognition of its extremist, in the absence of testing arguments about the absence of a religious organization in its actions signs of extremist activity, have been violated:
- the right of religious organizations to freedom of religion, expression and association, guaranteed by Article. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention and Art. Art. 18, 19, 21, 22 and 27 ICCPR;

- prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Art. And Article 3 of the Convention. 7 ICCPR;

- the right of religious organizations to the inviolability of property, as guaranteed by Art. Number 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention;

- the right of religious organizations to a fair trial guaranteed by Article. And Article 6 of the Convention. 14 ICCPR;

- prohibition of discrimination under Art. 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 3, 9, 10, 11 of the Convention and Art. Number 1 of Protocol 1 thereto, and Art. 26 ICCPR, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 7, 18, 19, 21, 22 ICCPR;

- the ban is politically motivated prosecutions arising from Art. 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention.
These violations are equally committed in respect of all 395 of liquidated local religious organizations, as well as practicing in Russia, the religion of the citizens of Jehovah, because the elimination of religious communities of Jehovah's Witnesses, as recognized by the Court, causing the believers - individuals mental anguish, anxiety and a sense of unfair treatment; It creates obstacles to their religious life and deprives them of the possibility to practice a religion of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with others [10] .

a) Violation of the right to freedom of religion, expression and association, as guaranteed by Art. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention

Since the solution implemented liquidation of religious organizations by reason of the spread in the Russian doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, in the present case it is necessary to take into account the following explanation of content of articles 9, 10, 11 of the Convention, the Court Information:
- "In accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a" democratic society "," thanks to her there is a foundation of diversity (pluralism), inseparable from democratic society [11] ;

- "The duty of the state to preserve the neutrality and impartiality is incompatible with any of its powers to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs" [12] ;

- "Religious freedom includes ... freedom ..." manifest [one's] religion "alone, in private or in community with others, in public or in a circle of fellow believers. ... Since religious communities traditionally exist in the form of organized structures, it is necessary to interpret Article 9 of the Convention in the light of Article 11 of the Convention, which provides guarantees against unjustified state interference in the activities of associations. If we consider the right of believers to freedom of religion, which includes the right to manifest one's religion in community with others, from this point of view, it includes the expectation that believers will be allowed to assemble freely, without arbitrary interference from the State [13] ;

- "It should also be recalled that the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses religion is guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention ... refusal to recognize a religious association, as well as its elimination and the use of derogatory remarks about the religious movement are examples of interference with the right guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention - in its external and collective aspect - both in terms of the association, and in respect of its members " ^{^[14]} ;

- "Freedom of expression constitutes one of the foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or neutral, but also to offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there can not be a "democratic society" ' ^{^[15]} .
Thus, government intervention affects the rights of religious organizations, established Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention, and such intervention will not constitute a breach of the Convention unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more legitimate aims set out in para. 2 of the articles, and was "necessary in a democratic society" to achieve these purposes [16] . But in the present case it is not.

- intervention is not provided for by law

The condition of "prescribed by law" is met in cases where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if necessary, by means of interpretation provided by the court, which actions and omissions which imposes on it responsibility " [17] . Thus, for the analysis of the term "law", the Court highlights the quality requirements such as accessibility and predictability [18] .
The judgment in the case "Orlovskaya Iskra against the Russian Federation" dated 02.21.2017, the (complaint 42911/08), the Court ruled that:
"The Court reiterates that the expression" prescribed by law "... requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but it also refers to the quality of the law, which must be accessible to the person concerned and have foreseeable consequences (see. , among others, p. 52 resolution Large Chamber ECHR in the case "Rotary against Romania» (Rotaru v. Romania [GC]), № 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V, and resolution claim 30 Large Chamber ECHR in the case "Maestri against Italy »(Maestri v. Italy [GC]), № 39748/98, ECHR 2004-I)».
Formally limit the rights of religious organizations was based on Art. Art. 7 and 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity", the requirement of availability which is compliance by virtue of publication [19] .
However, the use of religious organizations of these provisions did not meet the requirement of foreseeability. The law does not allow a religious organization to issue warnings due to false evidence and false expert opinion. The application of this rule to the religious organization is unpredictable yet because it is not clear, both from fraud must defend religious organization in cases where law enforcement agencies ignore their duty to verify the applications received and the protection of citizens against false accusations, and the courts exclude religious organization of process, during which studied relevant literature.
Unpredictable and it was interpretation of Art. Art. 7 and 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" because it does not comply with the principle of legal certainty is a fundamental component of the right. The Court found that "one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires inter alia, to the final resolution of the courts cases their decisions can not be called into question (see." Brumaresky against Romania »[Brumărescu v. Romania], § 61 above). " Of course, this principle applies only to the parties involved in the dispute. It is used to reflect changes in the law and the judicial clarification of law ^{^[20]} .
Denying religious organization's right to appeal against decisions on the recognition of extremist publications, and local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the courts proceeded from the fact that local religious organizations are separate legal entities, rather than structural units a centralized religious organization, and the fact that the importation of publications A religious organization can not be used for the violation of her rights. The statement from 27.10.2009, the № 8-731-07 prosecutors Rostov region has supported this approach in the case of liquidation of a local religious organization of "Taganrog" Jehovah's Witnesses, saying that if you listen to the arguments of the Administrative Center, the "accepted the decision of the Regional Court on 11.09.2009 resolved the question of the rights and responsibilities not only of the Administrative center, but also other religious organizations included in the structure of the center. " While agreeing with this position, the RF Supreme Court of Cassation ruling of 08.12.2009, the said: "The question of the rights and duties of the Administrative Center of the Regional Court in considering the above statement the prosecutor of the Rostov region is not resolved, the decision of the Rostov Regional Court on September 11, 2009 local religious organization of "Taganrog" Jehovah, the literature distributed by the organization, recognized as extremist and confiscated "has been recognized as extremist and eliminated. It is not clear why the Russian Supreme Court at the time believed that established by the relevant circumstances do not violate the rights and obligations of other legal Jehovah's Witnesses persons, but now decided to change their approach, he did not admit that a mistake was made then, the religious right the organization still have been violated. The Court of First Instance ignored the fact that, consistently adhering to the original legal position, the judiciary in dealing with all cases concerning the recognition of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist religious organization is not attracted to take part in the proceedings as an interested person. Religious organization was deprived of the opportunity to present their arguments in respect of the subject to appeal decisions of the courts and to use other procedural measures provided by the law, in order to influence the outcome of the case.
Changing the approach only in his indictment of the taking of the contested decision, the court proceeded from the fact that Art. 9 of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" may be applied to a centralized religious organization in the event that the local religious organization prosecuted based on countering extremist activity legislation. Such an interpretation can not be recognized clearly predictable. Firstly, as the consent of the representatives of the administrative plaintiff, the article in question directly about it does not say she's talking about regional or other structural units of organizations, public associations, who have such units. And on the question of the representative of a religious organization: "What is the rule of law provides that local religious organizations are the structural units of centralized religious organizations? You can call the rule of law ", - the representative of the administrative claimant replied:" No "(page 95 of the trial transcript).
Second, the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" do not call the local religious organization of any regional or structural units of the centralized religious organizations, but treats them as independent legal entities. Third, even a scientific opinion available in the case file confirms that local religious organizations are not territorial or other structural subdivisions of religious organizations in the sense in which these terms are used in the federal "On Countering Extremist Activity" law [21] .
Finally, the uncertainty of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" is still in the fact that the concept of extremism itself used therein was applied to the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses highly unpredictable ways. The term itself is defined very broadly in the said law. Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee urged the Russian Federation "without undue delay to reconsider" the definition of "extremist activity" contained in the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity", "taking action to ensure that this definition is provided for the element of violence or hatred " [22] . But it is Jehovah's Witnesses it applies without regard to its clarification by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as clarification of the relevant provisions of the Convention by the European Court of Justice. This uncertainty is so large that it is currently in the federal list of extremist materials included publications, for which different courts accepted as to accept their extremist, and to refuse to satisfy such claims.
Thus, the violation of the rights of religious organizations under Art. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention, it was not required by law.

- interference did not pursue a legitimate aim

The contested decision is intended to cease the activity of religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and spread beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. But as noted by the Court, "a comprehensive ban on the religious activities of the community, belonging to the well-known Christian religion, is an extraordinary event," [23] . This aim in itself is not legitimate.
Although the decision on pages 24, 32-34 states that the court is seeking to reinforce the rule of law and to prevent violations of state and public security, protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as to counter extremist activities, the actual actions of the government do not reach the stated goals, but just the opposite. Violated the principle of the rule of law, enshrined Art. 4 (2 h.) Of the Constitution, and suffered significant damage to legitimate rights, freedoms and interests of more than 175,000 Russian citizens, men, women and children. I signed into a new round of persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses religion. The court's decision on the Elimination of all religious communities of Jehovah's Witnesses has been interpreted as a pravopriminitelyami nationwide ban on the Jehovah's Witness religion with the announcement of their peaceful worship criminal. As a result, tens of thousands of believers are subjected to illegal prosecution solely because they have come together to read and study the Bible.

- interference was not necessary in a democratic society

should be mindful of the following principles of interpretation of the Convention by the Court to resolve the question of the need for restrictions in a democratic society:
- In resolving the question of the need to limit the court should "take into account the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, to maintain public order and ensure public safety and religious pluralism, of primary importance in a democratic society" [24] ;

- "Since its inception in the late nineteenth century, Jehovah's Witnesses there and are active in many countries, including in all European countries that are members of the Council of Europe. In these countries, they were granted permission to practice their religion in community with others " [25] ;

- "The State's responsibility for the preservation of neutrality and impartiality does not allow him to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or ways of expressing them." "In accordance with the European Convention for the State are not entitled to make a decision about how beliefs can be taught, and which are not, as guaranteed by the European Convention, the right to freedom of religion excludes any discretion on the part of the state to determine the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the means used to express them " [26] .
Religious organization, working for a long time, does not violate public order and public safety in Russia. Its action did not prejudice religious pluralism in Russia, where they continue to act in religious communities of other faiths. Therefore, the court must have been compelling and conclusive evidence of the involvement of a religious organization to break the law, and not to treat it with prejudice.
In view of the factual circumstances it is necessary to recognize that the urgent need to curb the activities of religious organizations is absent.
Within the meaning of Decision (page 34), the activity of the liquidated religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia did not cause any real harm, and the court, allegedly, has the purpose to prevent such damage and more serious consequences prohibited activities of Jehovah's Witnesses organizations. However, this argument is clearly far-fetched. If so, and have not come for tens of years of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, the negative consequences of their activities, even unwise to assume that such effects may occur later.
The history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia more than 100 years, and during that time there was no occasion when Jehovah's Witnesses called for violence, subversion or otherwise threatened by state security. In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses often received praise from the government for their good deeds for the benefit of society (Volume 6, LD 6-123; application to business, Volumes 1-9).
The Court has not led evidence that liquidated religious organizations were planning the commission of specific illegal actions against anyone that is attempted to these actions or provided training to them. The absence of such evidence in itself makes a statement about the intention of the court to prevent the onset of any consequences unfounded. While countering extremism - it is the prevention, suppression and punishment of dangerous actions for their commission, Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted by the court only for thought, for his commitment to the ideas set out in religious publications, and above all - in the Bible.
Although the decision comes from the fact that the need to limit the rights of religious organizations caused by the presence in the literature statements aimed at inciting religious hatred, propaganda of religious exclusivity and superiority, all these accusations are unsubstantiated and did not take into account the legal position of the European Court on initiation of enmity or hatred.
The Court recognizes the undeniable manifestations of inciting enmity and hatred incitement to violence, that is the implementation of statements, with a clear intention to lead people to the outbreak of the conflict, calls for a bloody vengeance, to bring to the reader the idea that the use of violence is a necessary and justified measure, saying the open threats of physical violence. Such displays are characterized hateful statements and praise violence ^{^[27]} .
But recognized extremist materials there was nothing that would, one way or another, contained "incitement to violence". In its response to the European Court of Human Rights from 20.10.2014, the Russian Ministry of Justice has recognized that the contested religious literature of Jehovah's Witnesses, "does not contain open calls for violence or incitement to violence" (p. 41 of the Memorandum on the complaint № 44285/10). Christian doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is based solely on the Bible and does not contain listed in the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" signs of extremism, not calls for extremist action. In the details on the basic tenets of the Organization draws attention to the fact that believers treat other people the way they would like to be treated with themselves (the Bible, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 12), and adhere to the principles of peace.
Consideration of modern institutions as "wicked," that is, as not conforming to the religious precepts, no evidence of religious intolerance and not an incitement of hatred or enmity ^{^[28]} . Explanation and criticism of the teachings of other religions are quite acceptable and guarantee the right to freedom of expression ^{^[29]} . Various religious terms, have caused doubts among vessels belong to a religious genre, ^{^[30]} and are a direct quotation of the Bible, but this did not take into account the courts have recognized publications extremist. The Court also pointed out the need to consider how to respond to the statements of the audience ^{^[31]} . But the courts did not consider that the publication of Jehovah's Witnesses did not lead to riots or acts of violence or other illegal activity, the literature does not cause readers of aggression and negative emotions.
The Court drew attention to the need for the national courts to specify in the reasoning of its rulings excerpts of texts on which they base conclusions about their orientation ^{^[32]} , and expressed willingness to take special attention to those parts of the text, which, according to the national courts, can be interpreted as an inciting violence and hate speech ^{^[33]}. Court decisions on the recognition of the Jehovah's Witnesses extremist publications do not meet these criteria. And the decision itself does not contain any analysis of the spread of what information the court found inconsistent with the continued existence of religious organizations.
The decision on liquidation of a religious organization and all 395 local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia is not "necessary in a democratic society". Such requirements are not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued States in the fight against extremism and does not correspond to a "pressing social need".
The liquidation of a religious organization is the most severe and harsh measure. The Court found that "requires very serious reasons that justify such a harsh measure, so that it can be recognized proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, its use is justified only in the most serious cases," ^{^[34]} . About the reason of such drastic measures, "only convincing and compelling reasons" ^{^[35]} may justify such restrictions. This is particularly true in the present case, since the decision in fact leads to the banning of a religion, there are hundreds of thousands of believers all over the country.
Such drastic measure is manifestly disproportionate to the following reasons.
Firstly, the Court in its decision did not establish that the activities of 396 religious organizations is an extremist. The vast majority of these organizations according to even laid down in the judgment position never did anything illegal, and, moreover, had not received any warnings for extremist activity. They act in accordance with the legislation of Russian Federation and does not violate the requirements of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity". Although the court considered it unimportant, but many even received praise from local authorities for social services. The only basis for the elimination of these organizations is, according to the Court, the fact that they have a canonical ties with each other. In other words, they are guilty only because they profess one faith. A liquidation of the local religious organization in the Decision is justified only by the fact that after the elimination of a centralized organization, these organizations will not be able to retain their former status, which is clearly not one of the "convincing and compelling reasons."
Secondly, the decision is based on the need to eliminate organizations not for their concrete actions, established on the basis of credible evidence and on the basis that they were unable to after the inclusion in the federal list of extremist materials destroy all such materials in Russia, including existing citizens who do not profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, in law enforcement and anti-cult organizations (even though it took the appropriate decisions the courts have argued that these organizations are not WHO agaetsya any duties, and thus the responsibility for the destruction of materials), and based on the assumption (presumption of guilt of Jehovah's Witnesses), which in some way to blame for the Jehovah's Witnesses is that such publications were found by law enforcement officials. This approach clearly does not consider that local religious organizations and religious organizations have taken all possible steps to fully comply with the requirements on counteraction to extremist activity legislation. It is hard to imagine what further reasonable steps Religious organization could undertake to comply with the anti-extremist legislation. Voiced by the Ministry of Justice Russian attitude that it should not be called up, which would allow a religious organization fulfills the requirements of the law, it has already been critically evaluated by the European Court of Justice ^{^[36]} .
Third, the liquidation of religious organizations and 395 local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses lead - formally or informally - to a nationwide disruption of the constitutional rights of over 175,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and about 300,000 people who visit their worship.
Law enforcement agencies, including the Prosecutor General of Russia, referring to the decision to begin criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for the confession of their faith. It is reliably confirmed by what happened in Taganrog, shortly after the recognition and elimination of extremist MPO "Taganrog". The elimination of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout Russia paves the way for the repetition of hundreds if not thousands of times throughout Russia all that happened with 16 Jehovah's Witnesses in Taganrog. Each of the more than 175,000 Jehovah's Witnesses, as in Soviet times, can be held criminally responsible for continuing to come together to read and study the Bible.
The Court of First Instance in the Decision did not justify why it needed such consequences for those casually mentioned in the Decision several detections (fraudulent) Jehovah's Witnesses publications since the warning direction to religious organizations.

- disproportionate interference

In paragraph 52 of the ECHR judgment in the case "Bible Center of Chuvash Republic (Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic) against the Russian Federation" (complaint № 33203/08), the Court ruled that "the right of believers to freedom of religion, which includes the right to manifest one's religion in community with others, it encompasses the expectation that believers will be allowed to assemble freely in the absence of any government intervention. The decision on liquidation of a religious association is equal to an interference with the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of the right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention (see., Cited earlier judgments of the European Court of Justice "Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow against the Russian Federation ", pp 99 - 103, ^{^[37]} with additional references)."
Actions aimed at the elimination of religious organizations is inadequate measure because:
- that such action is drastic measure, because they are aimed at the total elimination of peaceful religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses religion;

- they are made without taking into account the situation and the non-participation of a religious organization to commit active actions of an extremist nature.
396 Elimination of all religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia in connection with the accusation of extremism is not proportionate to the legitimate aim of any state. These measures can not be justified as "necessary in a democratic society."
Even if a local religious organization would be guilty of extremist activities, the state was available and less severe measures such as the use of it measures to prevent extremist activity, attracting her to administrative liability. Finally, the State could limit the elimination of the specific organization of the intruder.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not extremists. They are peaceful citizens who love God and their neighbors. They seek to comply with the laws of the Russian Federation, and try to be in all model citizens. They deserve protection and need it from the State in the person of the Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, it can be argued that there has been a violation of the right to freedom of religion, expression and association, as guaranteed by Article religious organization. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention.

b) Violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, guaranteed by Article. 3 of the Convention

According to Art. 21 of the Russian Constitution and Art. 3 of the Convention no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
General Comment number 20, the UN Human Rights Committee has explained that the law protects "the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual. ... under Article 7 of the prohibition applies not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering " ^{^[38]} .
The Court pointed out that the treatment becomes degrading if it arouses in victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating their dignity (in the case of a resolution "Kudla against Poland" ^{^[39]} ). "" All the circumstances of the case "should be taken into account" ^{^[40]} . Non-application of the state earlier Court decisions may be degrading treatment ^{^[41]} . In the dissenting opinion in the case of "Feti Demirtas against Turkey" ^{^[42]} concluded that in cases where a person or religious group is being discriminated against and biased treatment on the grounds of their religious beliefs, such treatment in itself constitutes inhuman and degrading degrading treatment.
Charges of a religious organization in extremist activities, equates peaceful activities of religious citizens to the seriousness of the offense. The threat of criminal prosecution of employees of religious organizations and all the faithful of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, certainly, causes them feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, fear continue to practice their religion. The decision to ban the activities of all religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia is perceived as the fact that these believers are delivered to Russia an outlaw, injects an atmosphere of intolerance to believers, which Jehovah's Witnesses have faced. Since 4/30/2017, in seconds. Lucina Moscow region is one of the local residents threw a Molotov cocktail into the house where the family lived Jehovah's Witnesses. Two homes and cars destroyed by fire worshipers emerged. This and similar cases demonstrate that Jehovah's Witnesses decision fueled acts of extremism, hatred and violence, despite the request of the Russian authorities that they are fighting to avoid serious consequences. The court therefore exposed employees of religious organizations and other worshipers of Jehovah's Witnesses to inhuman and degrading treatment.

c) Violation of the right to respect for property, guaranteed by Article. Number 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention

Since eliminating religious organizations and 395 local religious organizations, the court also ordered the confiscation of their assets remaining after satisfaction of creditors' claims, and such damage is considerable, the contested acts violate the rights guaranteed by Art. Number 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.

d) Violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article. 6 of the Convention

According to Art. 6 of the Convention, each, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or against him of any criminal charge has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, without any right to: be informed promptly and in detail informed on the language which he understands of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have adequate time and facilities for his defense; the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
With regard to the "right to a court", the Court has repeatedly pointed out:
"... The right of access to justice, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention, is not absolute and may be restricted. However, these restrictions are permitted by implication since the right of access to court by its nature requires government regulation. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision regarding compliance with the requirements of the European Convention was adopted by the European Court. In this case, it should be provided to the applicable requirements do not restrict or reduce the access of private persons to justice in a manner and within such limits that the very essence of the right is impaired. In addition, the restriction is not consistent with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality relationship between the means employed and the aim sought to be " ^{^[43]} .
In the case of "Ramanauskas v. Lithuania," the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the requirements of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected only if the trial had an effective opportunity to raise the issue of provocation. The obligation to prove that there was no provocation, provided that the reasons given by the applicant are not absolutely fabulous, the responsibility of the bodies carrying out the investigation. In the absence of such evidence, the courts must investigate the facts of the case and take the necessary measures to ascertain the truth in order to decide whether there was provocation. Particularly important is the conduct of the judicial review of the activities of law enforcement agencies that have occurred in the absence of prior court authorization, which applies in particular to the operational-search activities. Provocation and the use of its results in the trial resulting in irreparable erosion of the principle of a fair trial.
The religious organizations have not been allowed to argue that the religious literature of Jehovah's Witnesses and other materials are not an extremist. The vast majority of decisions on the recognition of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist and all decisions on the Elimination of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist that blamed for religious organizations, adopted without the involvement of religious organizations. evidence of falsification of the circumstances have not been investigated properly by the courts and the court of first instance - at all.
Consequently, the right of religious organizations to a fair trial guaranteed by Article. 6 of the Convention have been violated.

d) Violation of the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 3, 9, 10, 11 of the Convention and Art. 1 Protocol 1 thereto №

The word "discrimination", the Court has established two major value. Firstly, it may mean a specific approach to those who were in similar situations, without any objective grounds ^{^[44]} . Secondly, discrimination can also be when the state without an objective and reasonable justification does not apply a different approach to persons whose circumstances are significantly different ^{^[45]} . Discrimination is also when the difference in the approach to the proceedings due to religion, which is a violation of Art. 14 of the Convention in conjunction with other guaranteed rights ^{^[46]} .
Of the solution it implies that the need for liquidation of a religious organization is solely due to the membership of a religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses denomination. The only reason for such different treatment is the difference in religious beliefs. It is not concerned with what the activity actually carried out religious organization.
Firstly, in the administrative case of Jehovah's Witnesses treated differently than adherents of other so-called "traditional" religions without "reasonable and objective" study ^{^[47]} . It is known that the Russian members of other Christian denominations, especially if they belong to the majority religion, is not faced with such an infringement. For example, there is no case of liquidation and the recognition of an extremist religious organization of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as a result of mere allegations by persons professing other religions or falsified evidence. But Jehovah's Witnesses Court applied this approach. No other religious group has not been the object of such a permanent and coordinated pursuit. Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they profess their faith in Russia for more than 100 years, was denied the same treatment as members of the so-called "traditional" religions. Consequently, religious organizations discriminated against on grounds of religion.
Second, the court treated the religious organization as well as to a group of dangerous criminals or terrorists, while the circumstances of a religious organization are significantly different from the behavior of those who seek to foment enmity, hatred and humiliation of human dignity. Religious organization already on the list of Federal Financial Monitoring Service on a par with organizations such as Al-Qaeda, the Taleban, the Islamic State, etc.
All who are familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses know that they behave peacefully and show love, and even learn to love their enemies. Therefore, the Court in the proceedings of many cases, reiterates that the Jehovah's Witnesses - are peaceful people ^{^[48]} ; it is a religious group that has long been active in the world, which is also well established in the country and, therefore, is well known to the competent authorities ^{^[49]} ; The Court noted, Jehovah's Witnesses belong to the well-known Christian religion, "since its inception in the late nineteenth century, Jehovah's Witnesses there and are active in many countries, including in all European countries that are members of the Council of Europe. " After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's transition to democracy, Jehovah's Witnesses were legally practice their religion and register their religious organizations at the federal level and in the Russian Federation ^{^[50]} , and the members of this religion adhere to rules of conduct, which cover many areas of daily life, including the unacceptability of violence ^{^[51]} .
Thus, the impugned acts have violated the prohibition of discrimination against citizens on religious grounds.

e) Violation of the ban is politically motivated prosecutions arising from Art. 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention

The motivation for the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses as the extremists was coined during the Soviet Union. This practice has been rated as political persecution. Nevertheless, she continues, while many public figures have expressed objections, arguing that the prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in extremism - it is a lie repeated many times, does not become of this truth.
But neither the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Justice nor Russia nor any other authorized body is not carried out any checks, the aim of which was to protect the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses and others from charges of extremist activities.
Therefore, the religious organization is faced with the restriction of rights and freedoms guaranteed by Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention, solely for political reasons, ie for purposes other than those for which they have been prescribed.

Based on the above, in accordance with Art. Art. 14, 17, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, 45, 46, 56 (h. 3) of the Constitution, Article. Art. 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Art. Number 1 of Protocol 1 thereto, Art. Art. 7, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. Art. 295-299, 309, 310 CAS Russian Federation,

PLEASE:

The Supreme Court on 20.04.2017, at the administrative case AKPI17-238 cancel completely and take on the case of the new solution, which in meeting the administrative claim Russian Ministry of Justice to refuse.

The list annexed to the appeal document:

A copy of the appeal.
Receipt of payment of the state fee and a copy of it.
The power of attorney representative Alexander Omelchenko and a copy of it.
Warrant attorney Omelchenko AS and a copy of it.

Yours faithfully,

Representative

religious organization

"Administrative Center

Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia "

lawyer

A. Omelchenko

May 19, 2017

[1] Power and dissidents: from the dock. KGB and the Central Committee of the CPSU. M .: "Moscow Helsinki Group", 2006, pp 233, 237.

[2] By virtue of Art. 1 of the Law of the RSFSR of 18.10.1991 № 1761-1 of political repression recognized various coercive measures applied by the government for political reasons, in the form of deprivation of life or liberty, facilities for compulsory treatment in psychiatric hospitals, deportation and deprivation of citizenship, eviction populations of the places of residence, in the direction of the link, expulsion and banishment, forced labor in the conditions of restriction of freedom, as well as other deprivation or restriction of the rights and freedoms of persons recognized socialization flax dangerous to the state or political system on class, social, national, religious or other grounds, by the decision of the courts and other bodies vested with judicial functions, or administrative executive authorities and officials and non-governmental organizations or agencies are endowed with administrative authority.

[3] CCPR / C / SR.3136, CCPR / C / SR.3137, CCPR / C / SR.3157.

[4] See. Including pp 205-222 administrative objections of the defendant.

[5] See. Including volumes 18-23.

[6] See .: Definitions Supreme Court from 12.09.2006 № 51-G06-21, from 18.03.2008 № 21 G08-2, from 25.08.2009 № 15-G09-10, from 06.04.2010 number 67- G10-6, from 09.11.2010 № 20-G10-11.

[7] The ppt 99-106 objection to an administrative claim presented and many other judgments confirming this position. However, the Court of First Instance has not assessed the respective arguments of the defendant's administration.

[8] Resolution of the Presidium of the St. Petersburg City Court on 26.10.2011, the number 44g-101/11; Appeals definition of the Murmansk Regional Court on 10.01.2015, the № 33-3015 / 2015; Of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia on 28.09.2011 of the case № 33-3011; Determination of the Lipetsk Regional Court of 04.10.2013 in case number 33-889a / 2013.

[9] See .: p. 1 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 27.06.2013, № 21 "On application by the courts of general jurisdiction for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and the Protocols thereto", and pp. "And" n. 4 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 19.12.2003 number 23 "On the judgment."

[10] Resolution of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 205.

[11] Resolution of the European Court of 13.12.2001 in the case of "Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others against Moldova» (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova.), Complaint № 45701/99, ESHR 2001-XII, § 114; on 10.06.2010 was the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 99.

[12] Resolution of the European Court of 13.12.2001 in the case of "Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others against Moldova» (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova), the application number 45701/99, ESHR 2001-XII, § 118, 123 ; on 10.06.2010 was the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 99; Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the case, "Hasan and Chaush against Bulgaria» (Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC]), according to the complaint № 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI, § 62.

[13] Resolution of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 99.

^{^[14]} European Court of Justice judgment of 30.06.2011 in the case of "Association of Jehovah's Witnesses against France» (Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah vThe application № 8916/05, § 50-51;

[15] judgment of 08.10.2009 in the case of "Romanenko and others against the Russian Federation" (complaint № 11751/03), § 35; from 12.07.1976 of the case "Handyside (Handyside) against the United Kingdom", the complaint № 5493/72, Series A, № 24, § 49; and from 23.09.1994 of the case "Ersild (Jersild) against Denmark," the complaint № 15890/89, Series A, № 298, § 37.

[16] judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 13.02.2003 in the case of "Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others (Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others) against Turkey," the complaint №№ 41340/98, 41342/98 , 41343/98 and 41344/98, ECHR 2003-II, § 51; Judgment of 08.10.2009 in the case of "Romanenko and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 11751/03, § 37; Item 9.3 Posts CCPR № 2131/2012, in the case of "Leven against Kazakhstan (Leven v. Kazakhstan)», 01.05.2015 city Opinions adopted

[17] Resolution Court the case "Kokkinakis (Kokkinakis) against Greece" dated 25.05.1993 g, Series A, № 260-A, p. 22, § 52.

[18] judgment of 09.10.2008 in the case of "Moses against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 62936/00, § 233, 235; from 22.11.1995 of the case «SW v. United Kingdom» (SW v. United Kingdom) , Series A, № 335-B, pp. 41-42, § 35; from 22.11.1995 of the case «CR v United Kingdom» (CR v United Kingdom.) , Series A, № 335-C, § 34-35, and 32-33; and the judgment of the Grand Chamber on 22.03.2001 in the case of "Shtrelets, Kessler and Krenz against Germany» (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v . Germany), complaint № 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II.

[19] judgment of 29.03.2007 in the case of "Andrey Frolov against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 205/02, § 58.

[20] judgment of 24.07.2003 in the case of "Ryabykh against the Russian Federation» (Ryabykh v Russia.), Complaint № 52854/99, § 51; from 02.11.2006 of the case "Nelyubin against the Russian Federation» (Nelyubin v Russia.), complaint № 14502/04, § 21-22; on 07.02.2017 was the case "Lashmankin and others v Russia» (Lashmankin and Others v. Russia ), complaint № 57818/09, § 500.

[21] Legal Opinion from 26.9.2016, the № 24-4546 / 16, prepared by experts FGBUVO "Moscow State Law University. OE Kutafin "(Moscow State Law Academy) Doctor of Law Professor SM Kochoi and the candidate of legal sciences Associate Professor Grin OS (Volume 24, 122-139 ld).

[22] CCPR / C / RUS / CO / 7 on 28.04.2015, at p. 20. Similar conclusions contained in p. 25.31 Resolution 1896 (2012) PACE in items 497-508 of the report of the PACE Monitoring Committee on 14.09.2012, the (Doc. 13018), and pp 41-42 and 77 of the Opinion of the Venice Commission on 01.06.2012 (CDL (2012) 011rev).

[23] Resolution of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 155.

[24] judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 10.11.2005 in the case of "Leyla Şahin (Leyla Şahin) against Turkey," the complaint № 44774/98, § 110; Judgment of 25.05.1993 in the case "Kokkinakis (Kokkinakis) against Greece," the complaint № 14307/88, § 31; from 26.09.1996 of the case "Manoussakis (Manoussakis) and others against Greece," the complaint № 18748/91, § 44; on 24.02.1994 in the case of "Casado Coca (Casado Coca) against Spain," the complaint № 15450/89, § 55.

[25] Resolution of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 155.

[26] Resolution of the European Court of 26.09.1996 in the case of "Manoussakis (Manoussakis) and others against Greece," the complaint № 18748/91, § 47; on 10.06.2010 was the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 119, 141; Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 10.11.2005 in the case of "Leyla Şahin (Leyla Şahin) against Turkey," the complaint № 44774/98, § 107.

[27] judgment of 08.07.1999 in the case of "Shyurek (Surek) against Turkey (№ 1)" a complaint № 26682/95, § 62, and from 08.07.1999 of the case "Shyurek (Surek) against Turkey (№ 3) "complaint № 24735/94, § 40.

[28] judgment of 04.12.2003 in the case of "Gunduz (Gunduz) against Turkey," the complaint № 35071/97.

[29] Resolution of the European Court of 31.01.2006 in the case of "Ginevskii (Giniewski) against France," the complaint № 64016/00, § 43, 49, and 51-54 of 22.04.2010 of the case "Agenauer (Haguenauer ) against France, "the complaint № 34050/05.

[30] judgment of 04.03.2003 in the case of "Yasar Kemal Gokcheli (Yasar Kemal Gokceli) against Turkey," the complaint № 27215/95, 36194/97; from 08.07.1999 of the case "Shyurek (Surek) against Turkey (№ 4)" a complaint № 24762/94; from 08.07.1999 of the case "Karataş (Karatas) against Turkey," the complaint № 23168/94, § 52.

[31] judgment of 03.05.2007 in the case of "Ulusoy (Ulusoy) and other anti-Turkey" complaint № 4260/04, § 55, 57.

[32] Resolution of the European Court of Justice "Sula and Others v France», § 43, 47.

[33] Resolution of the European Court of 08.07.1999 in the case of "Shyurek (Surek) and Özdemir (Ozdemir) against Turkey," the complaint number 23927/94 and № 24277/94, § 61.

[34] European Court ruling on the case of "Bible Center of Chuvash Republic (Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic) against the Russian Federation" (complaint № 33203/08), § 54;

[35] judgment of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 108.

[36] judgment of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, § 175.

^{^[37]} judgment of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02, §§ 99, 100.

[38] Human Rights Committee, General Comment number 20. Article 7: Prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment or punishment, 44th Session (1992), §§ 2, 5.

[39] Kudła v. Poland [GC], complaint № 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI.

[40] Resolution of the European Court of 06.03.2001 in the case of "Dugoz (Dougoz) against Greece," the complaint № 40907/98, § 44, 46; from 16.12.1997 of the case "Raninen (Raninen) against Finland," the complaint № 152/1996/771/972, § 55.

[41] Moldovan and other against Romania (Moldovan and Others v. Romania) ( No. 2), №№ 41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 108-113, 2005-VII (extracts)).

[42] FeTi Demirtas v. Turkey, on 17.01.2012, at the application № 5260/07.

^{^{[43] The}} judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the case "Waite and Kennedy [against Germany]» (Waite and Kennedy [v59; in the case of "TR and KM the United Kingdom »(TP and KM v the Unitedon the complaint № 28945/95, ECHR 2001-V, § 98; in the case of «Z and the other against the United Kingdom» (Z and Others v. theon complaint № 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, § 93.

[44] judgment of 10.10.2006 in the case of "Paulik (Paulik) against Slovakia," the complaint № 10699/05, § 51.

[45] Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 06.04.2000 in the case of "Flimmenos (Thlimmenos) against Greece," the complaint № 34369/97, § 44.

[46] judgment of 23.06.1993 in the case of "Hoffmann (Hoffmann) against Austria," the complaint № 12875/87, § 33.

[47] Paragraph 7.4 Communications № 1249/2004, on 21.10.2005, the Opinion in the case of "Sister Immaculate Joseph and Others v Sri Lanka» (Sister Immaculate Joseph et al v . Sri Lanka).

[48] Decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 06.04.2000 in the case of "Flimmenos (Thlimmenos) against Greece," the complaint № 34369/97, § 42.

[49] judgment of 31.07.2008 in the case of "Religious Society of Jehovah's Witnesses and others (Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others) against Austria," the complaint № 40825/98.

[50] § 155, 156 judgment of 10.06.2010 in the case of "The religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow and others against the Russian Federation", the complaint № 302/02.

[51] Court judgment of 11.10.1984, on the question of admissibility complaint number 10410 "Norenius (Norenius) against Sweden», DR 15, p. 203.

Sign In