CASE OF CHAYKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF CHAYKOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 36930/21)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

 

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

In the case of Chaykovskiy and Others v. Russia,

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

 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,

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 13 July 2021.

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 the prohibition of the religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for “extremism” and criminal prosecution of its followers. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW        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).

     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 of the Convention

7.  The applicants Mr Chaykovskiy, Mr Chernyshev and Mr Komarov (the first, second and fourth applicants) complained principally of their criminal prosecution on charges of “extremism” for pursuing the activities of a liquidated local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention.

8.  The Court observes that in the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 256-73, 7 June 2022, it already found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held, in particular, that since the authorities failed to demonstrate that the applicants were involved in any socially dangerous activities of an extremist nature, their 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”.

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 on account of the criminal prosecution of the first, second and fourth applicants.

   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  All 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.

12.  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 pre‑trial detention within the criminal procedure tainted with arbitrariness as a whole, and Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014, concerning a search of the applicant’s home conducted in the absence of safeguards.

   REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  The first, second and fourth applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.

14.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not need to be examined separately in view of the Court’s finding in paragraphs 8-10 above.

    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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 sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;     Declares the complaints brought by Mr Chaykovskiy, Mr Chernyshev and Mr Komarov under Article 9 of the Convention, as well as other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court by the applicants (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints;     Holds that the complaints brought by Mr Chaykovskiy, Mr Chernyshev and Mr Komarov disclose a breach of Article 9 of the Convention concerning the criminal prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses on charges of “extremism”;     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);     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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;  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.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
 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)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

 

Substance of the complaint

Final domestic decision

Court name

Date

Other complaints under well-established case‑law

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per household

(in euros)[1]

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros)[2]

36930/21

13/07/2021

(5 applicants)

Ivan Stepanovich CHAYKOVSKIY

1955

 

Yuriy Yevgenyevich CHERNYSHEV

1963

 

Yekaterina Yuryevna CHERNYSHEVA

1968

 

Vitaliy Viktorovich KOMAROV

1976

 

Yelena Nikolayevna KOMAROVA

1975

 

Arbitrary criminal prosecution and conviction (applicants 1, 2 and 4) on charges of extremism for pursing the activities of a liquidated local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Moscow by holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses

 

Moscow City Court, 11/04/2023 (applicants 1, 2 and 4 convicted to six years and three months’ imprisonment)

Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - placement of applicants 1, 2 and 4 under house arrest from 27/11/2020 to 23/08/2021 (Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, decision to apply house arrest of 27/11/2020, extension orders of 21/01/2021, 19/04/2021, 20/05/2021 and 21/05/2021); no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued application of the preventive measure; extension orders upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 26/02/2021, 17/05/2021, 28/06/2021 and 26/07/2021,

 

Art. 8 (1) – Unlawful search - home search and seizure of the applicants’ belongings; search warrants issued by the investigative committee on 23/11/2020; scope of the search – “items and documents relevant to the criminal case"; carried out on 24/11/2020; Moscow City Court rejected the appeal complaints on 13/01/2021 and 10/02/2021

26,750 jointly to Mr Chernyshev and Ms Chernysheva

15,000 to each:
Mr Chaykovskiy,
Mr Chernyshev
and
Mr Komarov;

 

1,000 to each:
Ms Chernysheva and
Ms Komarova

 

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

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

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy