CASE OF SUVOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SUVOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 29779/18)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

 

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

In the case of Suvorov 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 26 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 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 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.  In so far as the complaints were raised by Mr Suvorov, Mr Kochnev, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Sandu, Mr Logunov, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev and Mr Zhugin, who were criminal defendants in the proceedings before the domestic authorities (see appended table for further details), 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. In so far as these complaints were raised by the remaining applicants, who were not subjected to any criminal prosecution or conviction, and thus could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation of the Convention, their complaints accordingly do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

9.  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”.

10.  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 merits of the complaints raised by Mr Suvorov, Mr Kochnev, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Sandu, Mr Logunov, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev and Mr Zhugin. Their complaints therefore disclose a breach of Article 9 of the Convention.

   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).

12.  In so far as these complaints were raised by Mr Suvorov, Ms Suvorova, Mr Kochnev, Ms Kochneva, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Yu. Kolbanova, Ms E. Kolbanova, Mr Logunov, Ms Logunova, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev, Ms Matveyeva and Mr Zinchenko, they 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, § 273, regarding unlawful detention, and Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014, and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, regarding unlawful search.

13.  In so far as these complaints were raised by the remaining applicants, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

   REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  The applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.

15.  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 9-10 above.

    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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 concerning the criminal prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses on charges of “extremism” (in respect of Mr Suvorov, Mr Kochnev, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Sandu, Mr Logunov, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev and Mr Zhugin) and other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court (is respect of Mr Suvorov, Ms Suvorova, Mr Kochnev, Ms Kochneva, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Yu. Kolbanova, Ms E. Kolbanova, Mr Logunov, Ms Logunova, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev, Ms Matveyeva and Mr Zinchenko), as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that the remaining complaints are inadmissible or that it is not necessary to examine them separately;     Holds that these complaints raised by Mr Suvorov, Mr Kochnev, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Sandu, Mr Logunov, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev and Mr Zhugin disclose a breach of Article 9 of the Convention concerning their criminal prosecution as 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 by Mr Suvorov, Ms Suvorova, Mr Kochnev, Ms Kochneva, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Yu. Kolbanova, Ms E. Kolbanova, Mr Logunov, Ms Logunova, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev, Ms Matveyeva and Mr Zinchenko (see appended table);     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the above applicants (see appended table), 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 non‑pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros)[1]

29779/18

26/06/2018

(22 applicants)

Aleksandr Gennadyevich SUVOROV

1980

 

Boris Maksimovich ANDREYEV

1992

 

Maksim Borisovich ANDREYEV

1971

 

Irina Aleksandrovna ANDREYEVA

1973

 

Tatyana Maksimovna ANDREYEVA

1996

 

Yana Valeryvna ANDREYEVA

1993

 

Igor Nikolayevich DANISH

1968

 

Vladimir Yuryevich KOCHNEV

1979

 

Galina Alekseyevna KOCHNEVA

1960

 

Vladislav Sergeyevich KOLBANOV

1992

 

Elvira Ismailovna KOLBANOVA

1969

 

Yuliya Sergeyevna KOLBANOVA

1998

 

Pavel Aleksandrovich LEKONTSEV

1981

 

Sergey Viktorovich LOGUNOV

1962

 

Larisa Yuryevna LOGUNOVA

1971

 

Aleksey Nikolayevich MATVEYEV

1983

 

Oksana Valeryevna MATVEYEVA

1988

 

Olga Timofeyevna SANDU

1984

 

Natalya Nikolayevna SUVOROVA

1975

 

Anatoliy Nikolayevich VICHKITOV

1974

 

Nikolay Nikolayevich ZHUGIN

1976

 

Tatyana Aleksandrovna ZINCHENKO

1963

Arbitrary criminal prosecution of the applicants (Mr Suvorov, Mr Kochnev, Mr Kolbanov, Ms Sandu, Mr Logunov, Mr Lekontsev, Mr Matveyev, Mr Zhugin) on charges of extremism for pursing the activities of a liquidated local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses “Tsentralnaya, Orenburg” by holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses, reading the Bible, sharing their beliefs with others, and studying religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses

 

Proceedings were still pending when the application was lodged before the Court

Art. 8 (1) – right to home - home search and seizure of the applicants’ belongings; authorised on 15/05/2018 by the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg; scope of the search – “objects and documents relevant for the investigation of the case, prohibited or restricted items and substances, literature, money and valuables obtained by criminal activity"; carried out on 16/05/2018; Orenburg Regional Court rejected the appeal complaints on 04/07/2018 (in respect of Mr Zinchenko, Mr Matveyev and Ms Matveyeva), 09/07/2018 (in respect of Ms Suvorova), 10/07/2018 (in respect of Mr Logunov and Ms Logunova), 11/07/2018 (in respect of Mr Lekontsev), 17/07/2018 (in respect of Mr Kolbanov, Ms. Yu. Kolbanova and Ms. E. Kolbanova) and 21/08/2018 (in respect of Ms Kochneva);

 

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention orders by the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg of 19/05/2018 (in respect of Mr Suvorov and Mr Kochnev), no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of these applicants’ having committed a crime; appeals rejected by the Orenburg Regional Court on 06/06/2018

7,500 to

Mr Kolbanov,

Ms Sandu,

Mr Logunov

Mr Lekontsev,

Mr Matveyev and

Mr Zhugin;

 

9,750 to

Mr Suvorov,

Mr Kochnev,

 

1,000 to

Ms Suvorova,

Ms Kochneva,

Ms E. Kolbanova, Ms Yu. Kolbanova,

Ms Logunova,

Ms Matveyeva and

Ms Zinchenko

 

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

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy