THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KIROV LRO AND DMITRIYEVYKH v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 29296/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 July 2025

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

In the case of Kirov LRO and Dmitriyevykh v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 June 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 15 June 2018.

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 that the prohibition of the religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and prosecution of its followers on charges of extremism had violated their rights to freedom of religion and association. They also raised another complaint 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. partial strike out

7.  In so far as the application was lodged by the Kirov local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Court observes the following. In the case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 234-55, 7 June 2022) it found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 11 of the Convention, lodged by the same applicant on account of its forced dissolution in 2017. The complaint raised by this applicant in the present case, the details of which are set out in the appended table, concerns the events preceding its forced dissolution. The Court considers, therefore, that the main legal issue has already been determined in the case of Taganrog LRO and Others and that, in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in this part.

8.  Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 of the Convention

9.  The second applicant complained principally of his prosecution for distribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious publications qualified as “extremist” material. He relied on Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention.

10.  The Court observes that in the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others (cited above, §§ 190-207), the Court already found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 10, in respect of issues similar to the one in the present case. The Court noted, in particular, that an offence of mass dissemination of extremist material under Article 20.29 of the CAO was conceptualised under Russian law as a formal offence. It was sufficient to establish that the publication in question was included in the Federal List of Extremist Material and that the offender engaged in its dissemination or possessed it with a view to disseminating. The law did not require the courts hearing the charges to evaluate the context in which the dissemination occurred, to examine the intentions of the offender, or to assess its actual or likely deleterious consequences. Because of the formal nature of the offence, the court decisions holding applicants liable for the dissemination of extremist material did not contain any assessment of the context of dissemination or its potential for harmful consequences. The Court held, however, that the fact that domestic law did not require proof that the offence had had any concrete effect did not obviate the need to justify the interference and to show that it was necessary in the specific circumstances. By focusing exclusively on the formal elements of an offence under Article 20.29 of the CAO, the domestic courts had failed to consider the criteria developed by the Court in cases relating to freedom of expression and religion and to adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference. The failure to carry out a balancing exercise led the Court to the conclusion that the interference did not pursue any “pressing social need” and was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”.

11.  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 this complaint.

12.  The complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the criminal prosecution of the second applicant.

4. remaining complaint

13.  The second applicant further raised a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in view of its findings in paragraph 12 above, it does not require a separate examination.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the second applicant the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of his claims for just satisfaction.

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. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in the part concerning the first applicant, the Kirov local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses;
3. Declares the complaint concerning the second applicant’s prosecution for distribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious publications admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaint raised by him;
4. Holds that this complaint by the second applicants discloses a breach of Article 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the second applicant, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

6. Dismisses the remainder of the second applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 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.