CASE OF LUBIN AND ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LUBIN AND ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 39476/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 March 2025

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

In the case of Lubin and Isakov 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 8 August 2021.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr S.H. Brady, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg.

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

THE FACTS

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

5.  The applicants complained that their prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses by organising services of worship and peacefully practicing their religion in community with others had violated their rights to freedom of religion. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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).

7.  The applicants complained principally of their prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of the liquidated local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses by organising services of worship and peacefully practicing their religion in community with others. 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) the Court 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 this complaint.

10.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the criminal prosecution of the applicants.

11.  The applicants submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.

12.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation 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.

13.  The applicants also raised another complaint under the Convention. 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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not require separate examination in view of the Court’s findings in paragraphs 9-10 above.

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see 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,

(a)  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;

(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.

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.