THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LOGINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 10618/19)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Loginov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 February 2019.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr P. Muzny, a lawyer practising in Geneva.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained of their criminal prosecution for pursuing the activities of a religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of their criminal prosecution as members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisation. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention.

8.  In the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 256-73, 7 June 2022), the Court held that, since the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the applicants have been involved in any socially dangerous activities of an extremist nature, the applicants’ prosecution and conviction for peacefully practising the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in community with others had been based on the impermissibly broad formulation and application of the extremism legislation and also did not pursue any legitimate aim or “pressing social need”. It concluded that there has therefore been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the criminal prosecution of the applicants.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 9 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, concerning the unlawfulness of pretrial detention within the criminal procedure tainted with arbitrariness as a whole, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, related to unlawful detention in general, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-111, 27 November 2012, concerning unreasonably lengthy detention on remand.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, § 300), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ criminal prosecution for pursuing the activities of the religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses by organising services of worship and peacefully practicing their religion in community with others;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 9 of the Convention

(prohibition of the religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for “extremism”, and criminal prosecution of its followers)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.