Communicated on 23 January 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37477/11
Centralised Religious Organisation Centre of Krishna Consciousness Societies in Russia and Mikhail Aleksandrovich FROLOV
against Russia
lodged on 29 May 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The first applicant, Централизованная религиозная организация Центр обществ сознания Кришны в России (the Centralised Religious Organisation Centre of Krishna Consciousness Societies in Russia, hereinafter “the Krishna Centre”), is represented before the Court by its authorised representative, the second applicant.
The second applicant, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Frolov, is a Russian national who was born on 3 February 1975 and lives in the Moscow Region. At the material time, he was the Krishna Centre’s legal adviser.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant was incorporated as a legal entity (a religious organisation) in 2002 by a group of local Krishna societies which were active in several Russian towns such as Nizhniy Novgorod, Krasnoyarsk, Moscow, Kaliningrad and Yaroslavl.
According to the first applicant, in 2008 various public authorities in Russia disseminated (unspecified) negative and false information about followers of the Krishna movement, a movement which was represented in Russia by the second applicant.
It appears that, in addition to being the first applicant’s official, the second applicant is also a follower of the Krishna movement.
1. The first applicant’s complaints
On 23 September 2008 the first applicant (the Krishna Centre) lodged a complaint with the St Petersburg Office of the Federal Agency of Mass Communications (“the Agency”), alleging that there was an adverse public campaign and that it fell within the purview of anti-extremist legislation, because it incited enmity and hatred on the grounds of religious belief. The Agency submitted the impugned material to a private company providing expert advice, and sought a report from it as to whether that material could be perceived as inciting racial, national or religious hatred or enmity. The company’s report concluded that the material could not be perceived in that manner. On 28 January 2009 an official of the Agency dismissed the complaint, with reference to the above report. On 29 April 2009 a complaint against that dismissal, lodged by the first applicant with a higher authority within the same Agency, was dismissed. The first applicant sought judicial review of the decisions of 28 January and 29 April 2009 under the Code of Civil Procedure. By a judgment of 10 November 2009 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the judicial review challenge. On 30 November 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
As an example to indicate the existence of an adverse public campaign, the first applicant refers to the “Beware: Sects!” project which was carried out in 2008 in the Ulyanovsk Region. Information about the project was published on the website of the regional administration, specifying that the main goal of the project was to prevent the negative activities of destructive religious groups.
As part of the project’s activities, at the regional government’s request, staff members of Ulyanovsk State University compiled “Be vigilant: Sects!” guidelines which concerned the Krishna movement, as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Scientology, and others. As regards krishnaites, the document read:
“On the streets of our towns you can see colourful groups of people wearing white and yellow clothing and chanting hymns ... You should know that those are members of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, a totalitarian religious organisation ...
Their goals are frequently commercial, to procure money by any means. They beg for money, sell their literature; in some countries, they have been caught stealing or selling drugs. All income is submitted to the leaders of the sect ... Even a brief overview of their teachings brings us to the conclusion that such religious teaching is extremely destructive to our society. It is not connected to our people, genetically, historically or geographically. It is a specific spiritual culture of the East. Psychological manipulation and zombification constitute a serious threat to our future.”
These guidelines were distributed to the teaching staff of local secondary schools.
The first applicant lodged a non-criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office under the Prosecutors’ Service Act. The complaint was then forwarded to the regional prosecutor’s office for examination. On 29 December 2008 the regional prosecutor’s office replied that: the public authorities had acted within their remit in relation to the “Beware: Sects!” project and guidelines; the primary objective of the project was to discuss acute issues relating to interfaith dialogue, and build the best possible framework for the relationship between the State and religious organisations; it remained open to the first applicant to institute civil proceedings, if they considered that the impugned guidelines impinged upon their rights or freedoms.
The first applicant’s renewed complaints to a higher authority were dismissed on 26 March and 6 June 2009 by, among others, the Prosecutor General’s Office.
The first applicant sought judicial review of those administrative decisions under the Code of Civil Procedure.
By a judgment of 27 October 2010 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the first applicant’s complaint, finding that the relevant decisions had been issued by a competent authority acting within its remit, and had disclosed the absence of sufficient grounds for action on the part of the prosecution service. On 16 March 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
2. The second applicant’s complaints
As required by section 7 of the Public Events Act, the second applicant notified the Moscow municipality of his intention to hold a public meeting (митинг) for some five to fifteen people on 13 April 2013, with the aim of disseminating information about Vaishnavism and healthy lifestyles based on spiritual values. On 2 April 2013 the municipality replied that “the aims of this meeting ran counter to section 2(1) of the Public Events Act”, thus the event could not proceed and, if held, the second applicant would be prosecuted. The second applicant decided not to hold the meeting, but sought judicial review of the administrative decision of 2 April 2013. By a judgment of 12 August 2013 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed his case. The court stated that a public event under the Public Events Act was to be aimed at expressing opinions or claims about political, economic, social or cultural issues arising in the country or in relation to its foreign policy; the aim of disseminating the teachings of Vaishnavism did not correspond to the statutory aim.
On 16 January 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment, providing reasoning which differed from that of the district court and, apparently, from the rationale of the decision of 2 April 2013. The appeal court considered that the event amounted to a missionary activity and could not be pursued as a “public event” within the meaning of the Public Events Act, and would be “incompatible with respect for others’ religion”. The court was of the view that it remained possible to disseminate the teachings of Vaishnavism by other means. Having regard to the factors set out above, the appeal court concluded that the decision of 12 August 2013 was proportionate.
On 10 April 2013 the municipality issued a similar decision regarding another of the second applicant’s events planned for 20 April 2013. However, the second applicant and some other people tried to hold that meeting. The police ordered them to disperse, and they complied. On 11 June 2013 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision of 10 April 2013 on judicial review. On 20 August 2013 the City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Legislation on religious organisations
At the material time, section 16 § 2 of the Religions Act (Federal Law no. 125-FZ of 26 September 1997) provided that services of worship, other religious rites and ceremonies could be carried out without interference in religious buildings and on designated plots of land. In other situations, such services of worship, rites or ceremonies were to be carried out pursuant to the procedure prescribed for meetings, demonstrations and marches (section 16 § 5).
In July 2016 the Religions Act was amended by way of the introduction of a new section concerning missionary activity, which defined such activity as activity aimed at disseminating information about religion among those who were not members of the relevant religious organisation, or who were not followers of the religion, with the aim of inviting them to join.
2. Secular and religious public events
Section 2(1) of the Public Events Act (Federal Law no. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004) defines a public event as an open event, accessible to everyone, which takes the form of a gathering, meeting, demonstration, march or picket; it can be organised by citizens, political parties, and non-governmental or religious organisations. Its aim should relate to freely expressing one’s opinions and putting forward claims about various political, economic, social or cultural issues arising in the country or in relation to its foreign policy. The same section also defines a “gathering” (собрание) as the collective presence of citizens in a place chosen for this purpose which is suitable for it, for collective discussion of various socially significant matters. A “meeting” (митинг) is defined as the presence of numerous people in one place for expression in public of their opinions regarding current affairs, essentially ones of socio-political nature.
In decision no. 1296-О of 23 June 2015 the Constitutional Court of Russia stated that the Public Events Act contained no prohibition on public events with a religious missionary aim.
On 5 December 2012 the Constitutional Court issued judgment no. 30-P on a complaint by the Russian Ombudsman which had been lodged on behalf of two Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been found liable in administrative proceedings for failing to give notice to the local authorities of a forthcoming religious event. It held:
“3.2. ... The requirement of prior notice applies to public events such as meetings, demonstrations, marches and static group demonstrations (group pickets); it does not apply to gatherings and solo static demonstrations ... Divine and religious gatherings (as well as certain services of worship and rites) are varieties of public religious events ... and in the existing legal framework correspond to the legal definition of a “gathering”, which, under section 2 of the Public Events Act, is a collective presence of citizens at a specially allocated or adapted place with the aim of having a collective debate on socially important issues ...
3.3. Having regard to the differences between secular and religious gatherings, the legislator was entitled to establish different legal requirements for conducting them. However, it is contrary to the constitutional principles of equality, justice and proportionality to extend the legal procedure for conducting meetings, marches and demonstrations to any divine and religious gathering, in so far as both the Public Events Act and the Religions Act fail to distinguish between, on the one hand, services of worship and religious assemblies which require the public authorities to take measures for the protection of public order and the security of the participants and other persons, and, on the other hand, assemblies which do not require any such measures (in which case the procedure for conducting them may be different and less rigorous than that established for conducting meetings, marches and demonstrations).
Requiring [organisers] to give written notice to the competent State or municipal authorities of such a public religious event and discharge other lawfully established obligations only because it is to be conducted outside specifically allotted premises amounts to an illegitimate interference by the State with freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 28 of the Russian Constitution and Article 9 of [the Convention], and to an unjustified restriction on the right to freedom of assembly under Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, which is not necessary for the purposes listed in Article 17 § 3 and Article 55 § 3 of the Russian Constitution and paragraph 2 of Article 11 [of the Convention].
In so far as it has extended the procedure for conducting meetings, marches and demonstrations under section 7 of the Public Events Act to any public religious gathering being conducted outside the places listed in section 16 §§ 1 to 4, without distinguishing between, on the one hand, services of worship and religious assemblies which may require the public authorities to take measures for the protection of public order and security, and, on the other hand, gatherings which do not require any such measures, including where a service of worship or religious gathering is held on non‑residential premises and neither the nature of the gathering nor the location of the premises is indicative of any danger to public order, morals or the health of the participants at the gathering or third parties, it follows that section 16§ 5 of the Religions Act is incompatible with Article 17 § 3, Article 18, Article 19 §§ 1 and 2, Article 28, Article 31 and Article 55 § 3 of the Russian Constitution.”
In the operative part of the judgment, the Constitutional Court directed the federal legislature to amend the relevant parts of the federal legislation:
“3. The federal legislature, in accordance with the requirements of the Russian Constitution and on the basis of this judgment, will have to make the necessary amendments to the procedure for conducting public divine services, other religious rites and ceremonies, including prayers and religious gatherings being held in places other than those listed in subsections 1 to 4 of section 16 of the Religions Act. The amendments should take into account the specific nature of such public religious events, since not all of them require the public authorities to take measures for the protection of public order and security of the participants and third parties ...
4. Pending the adoption of the necessary amendments ... the law-enforcement authorities and the courts ... shall be guided by the Russian Constitution and this judgment.”
C. Other relevant material
The official website of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) contains the following information:
“Vaishnavism is one of the major traditions within the broader Vedic, or Hindu, spiritual culture. Unlike some Vedic traditions, Vaishnavas believe that the ultimate reality is personal. Thus, they understand that God is the Supreme all-attractive person, or Krishna. They acknowledge that all living beings are eternal persons, and that all life’s problems are rooted in the individual soul’s forgetfulness of his or her relationship with God.
Vaishnavas teach that by chanting God’s names the soul can reawaken his original spiritual knowledge, live peacefully in this life and return to the spiritual realm, or Vaikuntha, the place of no anxiety, at the time of death.
There are four main sampradayas or Vaishnava lineages all based originally in India. Vaishnavas worship Lord Vishnu, Lord Rama, and Lord Krishna as different manifestations of the same Supreme Lord or one supreme divinity, although the styles of worship and emphasis differ.
The Vaishnava tradition has widely influenced South Asian culture through music, dance, theater and art. Vaishnavism’s heartfelt philosophy and poetic sacred texts integrate a profound theology with astute social discourse. The key Vaishnava sastras, or scriptures, are Krishna’s teachings in the Bhagavad-gita, included in the longer work, the Mahabharata), the Srimad Bhagavatam (one of the eighteen Puranas), the Ramayana, and the more recent 16th Century Sri Chaitanya-charitamrita.
ISKCON is part of the Gaudiya, or Chaitanya Vaishnava, tradition, which hails from the eastern regions of India. Gaudiyas place special emphasis on the teachings of 16th Century saint and avatar, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Gaudiya Vaishnavism in turn gave rise to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), which was founded by Srila Prabhupada in 1966. His organization, ISKCON, has increased the awareness and growth of Vaishnavism worldwide since the late 1960s. Today Vaishnava teachings have crossed all geographic borders and proven relevant in addressing humanity’s essential needs.”
COMPLAINTS
The first applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention regarding a public campaign targeting and labelling them as a “totalitarian sect” and tarnishing their religious beliefs, presenting followers of the Krishna movement as inferior or disabled people and inciting religious hatred and enmity.
The second applicant complains under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention regarding the administrative decisions of 2 and 10 April 2013.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.1. Besides the “Beware: Sects!” project, what was the content of the alleged public “campaign” relating to the Krishna movement?
1.2. Does the first applicant have standing to raise a complaint under Article 9 of the Convention regarding the events in 2008 (see Fédération Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah de France v. France, (dec.), no. 53430/99, 6 November 2001)?
1.3. Did the first applicant exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention?
If yes:
2. Was there a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in the present case in respect of the first applicant in relation to the events in 2008? In particular, did the respondent State comply with its duty of neutrality and impartiality (see İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 68, 26 April 2016)?
3. Assuming that the matters complained of regarding the events in 2008 fall within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention (see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom, no. 7552/09, §§ 25 and 30, 4 March 2014, and Fédération Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah de France (dec.), cited above), was there a violation of Article 14 of the Convention as regards the first applicant?
4. As regards the second applicant, was there a violation of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention in the present case in relation to the public events in 2013? In particular:
- Was the “interference” in the present case lawful, in particular having regard to decision no. 1296-О of 23 June 2015 of the Constitutional Court? Was it permissible, under Russian law at the time, to hold a religious “meeting” or ”gathering” in a public place (outdoors) and, if yes, was prior notice to the competent authority required? Did an outdoors event aimed at distributing information about a religion constitute a service of worship, rite or ceremony within the meaning of section 16 §§ 1 and 5 of the Religions Act?
- What legitimate aim, in terms of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, was pursued by the “interference”?
- Was the interference necessary and proportionate to this aim? Did the administrative authority adduce relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the “interference”?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy