RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS


 

Russian Supreme Court says Jehovah's Witnesses may worship without notifying authorities

RUSSIAN SUPREME COURT ADOPTS TWO DECISION PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

Portal-credo.ru, 1 May 2015

 

The Supreme Court of the Russian federation ruled illegal two fines totaling 200,000 rubles, which were assessed on the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Orel for failure to inform authorities about conducting worship services in 2013, the press service of the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia reported on 1 May.

 

Earlier the Orel provincial court had refused to satisfy an appeal and supervisory complaint.

 

However, on 11 March, Ella Pamfilova, the plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation, sent to the Supreme Court a petition for annulling these judicial acts, citing a decision of the Constitutional Court of the RF, which on 5 December 2012, reviewing a case regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings, permitted them to conduct public worship services without notifying authorities.

 

The decisions issued in the Jehovah's Witnesses' favor were published on 30 April on the Supreme Court's website. (tr. by PDS, posted 3 May 2015)


Document: Ruling of justice of Russian Supreme Court in Favor of Jehovah's Witnesses

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

 

DECISION


Moscow                                 10 April 2015

 

Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian federation V.P. Merkulov, having reviewed a petition of the plenipotentiary for human rights of the Russian federation, E.A. Pamfilova, submitted in accordance with the procedure of subpoint 3 of point 1 of article 29 of the federal constitutional law of 26 February 1997, "Concerning the plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation," in the interests of the "Orel" local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, regarding the verification of the decision of a judge of the Soviet district court of the city of Orel of 26 March 2014, and  a decision of a judge of the Orel provincial court of 29 April 2014, and a decision of the deputy chairman of the Orel provincial court of 20 June 2014, issued with respect to the "Orel" local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses (hereinafter LRO JW Orel), and which have taken legal effect, regarding a case of the administrative violation of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Violations of Law (hereinafter CAVRF),

 

has established:

 

on 27 February 2014 an official of the UMVD [Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs] of Russia for the city of Orel composed with respect to LRO JW Orel a protocol regarding the administrative violation of law stipulated in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF, according to which on 26 March 2013, at 19.30, the LRO JV Orel planned and conducted in the premises of the Palace of Culture of the All-Russian Society of the Deaf (hereinafter DK VOG—Dvorets Kultury Vserossiiskogo Obshchestva Glukhikh) at the address 73 Gagarin St., Orel, a public event, a public worship service which 200 persons attended, without having delivered, in accordance with federal law of 19 June 2004, "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing," notification about the conduct of a public event to an agency of local self-administration, the administration of the city of Orel, at which there was a possibility that there would arise a danger for pubic order, morality, and health of both the participants in the religious event themselves and third persons also, which would require of agencies of public authority that they take measures aimed at preserving public order, security and the safety of citizens.

 

The premises of the DK BOG had been provided to the LRO JW Orel in accordance with an agreement with the administration of the All-Russian Society of the Deaf on the basis of a relevant declaration.

 

A decision of a judge of the Soviet district court of the city of Orel of 26 March 2014 left without change a decision of a judge of the Orel district court of 29 April 2014 and a decision of a deputy chairman of the Orel provincial court of 20 June 2014 by which the LRO JW Orel was found guilty of committing an administrative violation of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF and was subjected to an administrative penalty in the form of an administrative fine of 100,000 rubles.

 

The plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation, E.A. Pamfilova, sent to the Supreme Court of the Russian federation a petition in the interests of LRO JW Orel for verifying the decisions made in the present case concerning administrative violation of law with respect to LRO JW Orel and she asked for their annulment, citing the absence of evidence of the administrative violation of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF in the actions of the aforementioned person.

 

After studying the materials of the case of an administrative violation of law and the petition of the plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation, I have reached the following conclusions.

 

Having found LRO JW Orel guilty of an administrative violation of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF, the judge of the district court referred to the fact that the organizer of a public event of the LRO JW Orel, in violation of the requirements of article 16 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association" and article 5 of the federal law "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing," did not submit to an agency of local self-administration notification, within the period of time established by law, of the conduct of a public event. A higher judicial instance agreed with the conclusions of the judge of the district court. The Constitutional Court of the Russian federation has confirmed the constitutionality of the provisions of point 5 of article 16 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations."

 

The judges of the district court and the higher judicial instances took into account the correct position that has been expressed in the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation of 5 December 2012. At the same time, in deciding this case, the judicial instances proceeded from the fact that applying to the conduct of public religious events the legal norm of the procedure for conducting rallies, processions, and demonstrations (but not meetings and solitary pickets) cannot be viewed as a violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of citizens, nor may the establishment of the obligation of informing agencies of public authority about their conduct and also of the legal responsibility for inadequate fulfillment of this obligation be viewed as excessive interference of the government into the affairs of religious organizations. However, the extent to which point 5 of article 16 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" applies the procedure for conducting rallies, demonstrations, and processions established by article 7 of the federal law "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing" to such public religious events as prayer and religious meetings, conducted in places other than those indicated in points 1 to 4 of article 16 of the aforesaid federal law, without taking into account the differences between those prayer and religious meetings, whose conduct may require that agencies of public authority adopt measures aimed at securing pubic order and the safety of both the participants in the religious event themselves and other citizens, and those meetings whose conduct does not entail such a necessity, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation of 5 December 2012 found this norm not to be in accordance with the constitution of the Russian federation.

 

The normative procedure for exercising the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religious confession guaranteed to everybody by article 28 of the constitution of the Russian federation requires coordination with the procedure for exercising other constitutional rights and requires both the legislature and law enforcers, including courts, to ensure a reasonable balance of the interests of believers and religious associations, on one hand, and secular political and government institutions, on the other, without infringing at the same time the very substance of this right and without creating impediments to its exercise.

 

Freedom of conscience and religious confession, exercised in the form of association of adherents of one or another confession for conducting joint prayers, religious rituals, and other events, is inseparably linked with other rights and liberties secured by the constitution of the Russian federation, primarily with the right of association and also the right to freedom of assembly, which, as the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation in its decision of 18 May 2012 indicated, is one of the fundamental and inseparable elements of the legal status of the individual in the Russian federation as a democratic and law-based state, upon which lies the obligation to guarantee the protecting, including judicial protection, of the rights and liberties of individual and citizen (articles 1 and 64, part 1 of article 45, article 46 of the constitution of the Russian federation).

 

In addition, the European Court for Human Rights in its practice posits that freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, along with freedom of assembly, constitute the foundation of a democratic society. The right to freedom of religious confession, as it is defined in article 9 of the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Basic Liberties, from the point of view of its article 11, confirms the right to freedom of assembly, which applies to both closed and public meetings, as well as meetings in a specific place and public processions, and proceeding from the fact that religious societies traditionally exist in the form of organized structures presupposes that believers will be allowed to assemble freely without unjustified state interference.

 

However, the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, and to conduct meetings, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing, confirmed by article 31 of the constitution of the Russian federation is not absolute, and by virtue of its part 3 of article 55 may be restricted by federal law to the extent that is necessary for purposes of protecting the foundations of the constitutional structure, morality, health, and the rights and legal interests of other persons, and ensuring the defense of the country and security of the state; such a federal law should ensure the possibility of exercising this right and simultaneously observing adequate public order and safety without infringement of the health and morality of citizens on the basis of a balance of interests of the organizers and participants of public events, on one hand, and third parties, on the other.

 

The state should refrain from applying unfounded covert restrictions of the right to peaceful assembly, and its interference in this right may occur only when there are convincing and irrefutable reasons justifying it.

 

The federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" regulates legal relations in the area of the rights of individual and citizen to freedom of conscience and freedom of religious confession, as well as the legal situation of religious associations.

 

Article 16 of this federal law confirms the right of religious organizations to conduct religious events in places specifically designated for these purposes or in premises provided for those purposes enumerated in points 1 to 4 of the aforementioned article.

 

Public worship services, other religious rituals, and ceremonies in other places beside those indicated in points 1 to 4 of article 16 of the aforementioned federal law (including under the open sky or in nonresidential premises) in accordance with point 5 of this same article (in editions in effect before the changes introduced by the federal law of 22 October 2014) are conducted in accordance with the procedure established for conducting rallies, demonstrations, and procession, which at the present time are defined by the federal law of 19 June 2004, "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing."

 

The extending to any prayer and religious meetings, conducted outside of places specifically designated for them, the legal regulations of rallies, demonstrations, and processions in circumstances when neither the federal law "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing" nor the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" makes any distinctions between those prayer and religious meetings, whose conduct may require from agencies of public authority to application of measures aimed at guaranteeing public order and safety of both the participants in the religious event themselves and other citizens, and those whose conduct does not entail such a necessity (which permits providing for their conduct different, less strict, legal regulations in comparison with those established for conducting rallies, demonstrations, and processions) violates the principles of equality, justice, and proportionality flowing from the constitution of the Russian federation.

 

The necessity of informing competent agencies of government authority or agencies of local self-administration about such a public religious event and of providing other encumbrances established by law by virtue of the fact alone that its conduct is outside of places specifically designated for these purposes represents an illegal interference of the government into the sphere of freedom of conscience guaranteed to everybody by article 28 of the constitution of the Russian federation and recognized by article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Liberties, and it is unreasonable and not in conformity with the goals indicated in part 3 of article 17 and part 3 of article 55 of the constitution of the Russian federation, and in point 2 of article 11 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Liberties, and a restriction of the right to freedom of assembly confirmed by article 31 of the constitution of the Russian federation. Thus, point 5 of article 16 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations", to the extent to which it applies to such public religious events as prayer and religious meeting conducted in places other than those indicated in points 1 to 4 of article 16 of the said federal law the procedure for conducting rallies, demonstrations, and processions established by article 7 of the federal law "On meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions, and picketing," without taking into account differences between those prayer and religious meetings whose conduct may require agencies of public authority to use  measures aimed at ensuring public order and safety of citizens and those whose conduct does not entail such necessity, including application to instances of the conduct of prayer and religious meetings in nonresidential premises, when neither the content of the religious event itself nor the location of said nonresidential premises entails posing a danger to public order, morality, and the health of either the participants of the religious event themselves or third parties has been ruled by the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation to be not in accordance with part 3 of article 17, article 18, parts 1 and 2 of article 19, articles 28, 31, and 55 of the constitution of the Russian federation.

 

In addition, the federal law of 22 October 2014 introduced changes into article 16 of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious association" according to which at the present time there is provided the possibility of unhindered conduct of worship services, other religious rituals, and ceremonies, including in premises provided to religious organizations for conducting their charter-related activity as well as on lands on which their buildings having pertinent premises are located, in accordance with an agreement with the owners of such buildings.

 

It follows from the provisions of part 5 of said article in its current version that at the present time public worship services and other religious rituals and ceremonies (including prayer and religious meetings), held in public places, are conducted in accordance with the procedure established for conducting rallies, processions, and demonstrations, in circumstances that require adoption of measures aimed at ensuring public order and safety of both the participants in the religious rituals and ceremonies themselves and of other citizens.

 

Thus, taking into account the legal position expressed in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian federation of 5 December 2012, the circumstances established in this case give evidence that the organization of public worship services by LRO JW Orel did not require in that case preliminary notification of the competent agency about its being conducted. There are no indications that the contents of the religious event posed a potential danger of disruption of public order.

 

The materials of the case do not contain information indubitably pointing to the fact that the conduct of the worship services in DK BOG required of agencies of public authority the adoption of measures aimed at guaranteeing public order and safety of citizens. The religious event proceeded in the form of a worship service, during which there was singing, reading of sacred texts, and preaching, and the event proceeded peacefully and questions pertaining to political, economic, and social life of the country were not touched upon. The possibility of there arising a danger of the violation of public order, morality, and the health of both participants in the religious event themselves and also other persons is not objectively confirmed by anything.

 

According to parts 1 and 4 of article 1.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation of Administrative Violations of Law, a person is liable for administrative responsibility only for those administrative violations of law for which his guilt is confirmed. Any inherent doubts of the guilt of a person who has been held administratively responsible are interpreted in that person's favor.

 

Under such circumstances, the decision of the judge of the Soviet district court of the city of Orel of 26 March 2014, the decision of the judge of the Orel provincial court of 29 April 2014, and the decision of the deputy chairman of the Orel provincial court of 20 June 2014 handed down with regard to LRO JW Orel in the case of administrative violation of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF are subject to being rescinded.

 

The proceedings on the case of administrative violation of law are subject to termination on the basis of point 2 of part 1 of article 24.5 of the CAVRF because of the absence of evidence of administrative violations of law specified in part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF  in the actions of LRO JW Orel.

 

On the basis of the foregoing and guided by articles 30.13 and 30.17 of CAVRF, a justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian federation


                                                                                      has decided:

 

to grant the petition of the plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation, E.A. Pamfilova, which was submitted in accordance with the procedure of subpoint 3 of point 1 of article 29 of the federal constitutional law of 26 February 1997 "On the plenipotentiary for human rights in the Russian federation" in the interests of LRO JW Orel;

 

to rescind the decision of a judge of the Soviet district court of the city of Orel of 26 March 2014, the decision of a judge of the Orel provincial court of 29 April 2014, and the decision of a deputy chairman of the Orel provincial court of 20 June 2014, handed down with respect to LRO JW Orel in a case concerning the administrative violation of law specified by part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF;

 

to terminate the proceedings on this case regarding administrative violation of law on the basis of point 2 of part 1 of article 24.5 of the CAVRF because of lack of the essence of an administrative violation of law specified by part 2 of article 20.2 of CAVRF in the actions of LRO JW Orel.

 

V.P. Merkulov

Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

 

(tr. by PDS, posted 4 May 2015)

 

Russian original posted on the website of Russian Supreme Court, 30 April 2015


Translator's note: The Supreme Court published a second decision in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the same day. The text of the second decision, issued by the same justice, is a nearly verbatim copy of the first decision translated here.


The factual, incidental differences between the two documents are the following:
the court of the first instance was the Zheleznodorozhnyi [i.e. “Railroad”] district court instead of the Soviet district court;
the date of the decision was 16 July 2013 (instead of 26 March 2014);
the court of the appeals was the same, the Orel provincial court, on 19 August 2013 (instead of 29 April 2014) and on 10 October 2013 (instead of 20 June 2014);
the meeting that was the reason for the administrative case was held on 27 April 2013 (instead of 26 March 2013), from 9.40 a.m. to 1600 p.m. in the Palace of Culture of Railroad Workers, attended by 590 persons. The contract for rental was concluded between the “Russian Railroad” company and LRO JW Orel.

In a noteworthy omission,  the second decision does not include the interesting sentence specifying what did and did not happen at the meeting in question that gave evidence in support of the conclusion that the meeting did not threaten any danger to public order, morality, or physical well-being, and therefore exempted the Jehovah’s Witnesses from the rules governing “rallies, processions, and picketing,” which thus meant that the Witnesses were not required to give advance notification to the authorities—which is the core of the issue in the case.  Moreover, it seems to me that this single sentence is a telling judicial refutation of the entire "extremism" argument regarding the JWs. (PDS)


Russia Religion News Current News Items

Editorial disclaimer: RRN does not intend to certify the accuracy of information presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the articles as they appeared in news media of countries of the former USSR.

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.