Communicated on 19 June 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 16094/17
LEVADA CENTRE against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The cases concern the Russian Foreign Agents Act, according to which every Russian NGO engaged in political activity and receiving grants from foreign donors was declared to be a “foreign agent” and subjected to various restrictions (see Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, no. 9988/13 and 48 other applications).
Application no. 27215/17 also concerns the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-85, 20 September 2016).
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. In respect of all the applicants, was there a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Do the provisions of the Foreign Agents Act meet the “quality of law” requirements contained in Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular:
(i) Is the definition of the term “foreign agent” sufficiently clear and foreseeable?
(ii) Are the provisions on foreign financing foreseeable? Does Russian law establish any specific amount, period or form of foreign financing in order for an entity to be recognised a foreign agent?
(iii) Is the definition of “political activity” sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application?
(iv) Are the labelling requirements formulated with sufficient clarity? Does the national law prescribe with sufficient clarity what material requires labelling or from where the material should originate? Do the domestic courts draw a distinction between publications on behalf of an organisation and those made by a private individual?
(v) Is the amount of the fine for violation of the Foreign Agents Act sufficiently foreseeable?
(b) Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Were the reasons for the interference “relevant” and “sufficient”? In particular:
(i) Were the negative connotations of the term “foreign agents” considered when choosing a name for organisations receiving foreign funding? Was such branding “necessary in a democratic society”?
(ii) Was the restriction of applicants’ access to foreign funding “necessary in a democratic society”? What were the consequences of such restriction in terms of the availability of alternative funding? The Government are requested to illustrate their response with specific examples.
(iii) Did registration as a foreign agent have an impact on the applicants’ ability to freely express their ideas and carry out political activity? Was the suppression of the applicant organisations’ free debate and political activities necessary in a democratic society?
(iv) Are the additional reporting requirements applicable to the applicant organisations – such as labelling publications, keeping separate records of income or expenses obtained from foreign sources, submitting reports on activities and the composition of their management bodies, and auditing – proportionate to the aim pursued, and do they impose an excessive burden on the applicants?
(v) Are the sanctions for violation of the Foreign Agents Act proportionate to the gravity of the imputed offences? Did the domestic courts weigh the amount of a fine against the financial standing of an applicant and the potential impact of the fine on the applicant’s sustainability?
2. As regards the applicants who rely on Article 14, have they suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on account of their being labelled as foreign agents, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?
3. As regards the applicants who rely on Article 18, were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant organisations, ostensibly pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, applied for purposes other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
4. As regards application no. 27215/17, did the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings result in a breach of the impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-85, 20 September 2016)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
16094/17
21/02/2017
LEVADA CENTRE
18/09/2002
Moscow
Ilnur Ilgizovich SHARAPOV
18995/17
28/02/2017
MAN AND LAW
24/11/1999
Yoshkar-Ola
Darya Sergeyevna PIGOLEVA
27215/17
21/03/2017
Irina Nikolayevna DUBOVITSKAYA
13/05/1966
Krasnodar
Darya Sergeyevna PIGOLEVA
29482/17
23/03/2017
SAKHALIN ENVIRONMENT WATCH
30/09/1997
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV
34499/17
02/05/2017
HUMAN RIGHTS ACADEMY
13/06/1997
Yekaterinburg
Anton BURKOV
53490/17
19/07/2017
SOUTH HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
24/03/2004
Sochi
Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA
60569/17
06/08/2017
CHAPAYEVSK MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
29/09/1999
Chapayevsk
Yelena Yuryevna
PERSHAKOVA
61111/17
24/07/2017
CENTRE FOR SOCIAL AND LABOUR RIGHTS
18/03/1999
Moscow
62848/17
01/08/2017
LEGAL MISSION
18/03/2009
Chelyabinsk
Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV
64181/17
21/08/2017
Oleg Vladimirovich SERGEYEV
21/07/1972
Syktyvkar
Irina Anatolyevna BIRYUKOVA
69157/17
15/08/2017
SCHOOL OF THE RECRUIT
11/07/2014
Chelyabinsk
Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV
81560/17
18/11/2017
WOMAN’S WORLD
30/11/2011
Kaliningrad
Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV
81751/17
18/11/2017
SOVA CENTRE
21/10/2002
Moscow
Yelena Yuryevna
PERSHAKOVA
130/18
11/12/2017
Viktor Pavlovich YUKECHEV
06/11/1984
Novosibirsk
TAK-TAK-TAK
19/06/2013
Novosibirsk
Ilnur Ilgizovich SHARAPOV
15813/18
29/03/2018
RYAZAN MEMORIAL
30/06/1999
Ryazan
Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy