RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS


Russian government resisting European court

ONE LAW FOR THE RICH, ANOTHER FOR THE POOR

How the commissioner from Russia in European court once again is evasive

by Attorney Sergei Chugunov

Religiia i Pravo, 20 November 2017

 

The first case connected with the application of the "Yarovaya Package" in the part regulating missionary activity is under consideration in the European Court of Human Rights (E.C.H.R.). This is the case Ossewaarde versus Russia. The appeal in this case was filed early this year. The E.C.H.R. communicated the appeal very quickly and posed for the Russian government a number of questions. In particular, it posed the question: did the Russian courts distinguish between "missionary activity" conducted by a religious group and individual evangelism and did they point to any facts confirming their conclusion? Actually, this is the key question connected with the application of the "Yarovaya Package" in this part. Because assurances have been voiced that the rules adopted do not affect the right of citizens to disseminate their religious convictions but only regulate missionary activity of religious associations.

 

An answer from the Russian government recently arrived, over the signature of the Russian commissioner at the E.C.H.R., deputy minister of justice of the Russian federation, M.L. Galperin. In my view, it contains arguments that are not in accordance with the standards of the E.C.H.R. applying to the protection of human rights while they also contradict our own legislation.

 

For example, the basic argument of the government on the aforementioned question comes down to the following: "At the same time he indicated in the explanation that he invited to worship with 'us,' that is, with a group, and he signed these leaflets as the Baptist missionary Donald Ossewaarde, and he did not invite to an individual sermon of Donald Ossewwarde." That is, if there were even two persons, that is a group. Thus our government actually maintains that citizens do not have the right of joint confession of religion immediately without creating at the same time a religious association. And what about the individual constitutional right guaranteed to us? Apparently we simply have not understood it correctly. But then what do we do with point 1 of article 3 of the law on freedom of conscience, which specifically states our right: "In the Russian federation, freedom of conscience and freedom of religious confession are guaranteed, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or to profess none, to perform worship services and other religious rituals and ceremonies, and to conduct religious teaching and religious education, and freely to choose and change, to hold and to disseminate religious and other convictions and to act in accordance with them, including the creation of religious associations."

 

The law guarantees to us that we may exercise all the aforesaid rights without creating religious associations. The creation of a group does not depend on the number of assembled citizens but on their willing declaration of its creation. But the government of the Russian federation in this case for some reason does not agree with the norms of our law.

 

Further in the government's response we see another affirmation that contradicts our legislation.

 

"The plaintiff engaged in missionary activity on the territory of the Russian federation from 1996, and he was not held administratively accountable for this all the way to 14 August 2016, since it was not required, before the adoption of the federal law of 6 July 2016 'On introducing changes into the federal law "On combating terrorism" and individual legislative acts of the Russian federation for establishing additional measures of combating terrorism and securing public security,' to notify in written form about the start of the activity of a religious group an agency authorized to make a decision about the state registration of a religious organization."

 

As we see, the government cites the adoption of the "Yarovaya Package" itself. This "package" linked the right of conducting missionary activity in the name of a religious group with the existence of a notification regarding the start of its activity. This is true. But the procedure itself of notification was introduced substantially earlier, while from the letter of the law it is obvious that it is not obligatory. But in reading the aforesaid, it is possible to draw the conclusion that from the moment of the adoption of the "Yarovaya Package" such notification became obligatory. However, in the rules adopted there is no word about this. Consequently, the question arises: is this because of ignorance of the law or because of intent to deliberately ignore it? Or maybe it is simply from inability to make his arguments.

 

Considering how there have recently sounded ever more often accusations against the E.C.H.R. on the part of representatives of our agencies of government to the effect that decisions of the court are politicized and contradict provisions of our constitution, and so forth, that means that they should not be fulfilled. But one can say this only with people who are not acquainted with the details of a single case reviewed by the E.C.H.R. with respect to the Russian federation. But one should consider a specific case, and the picture becomes otherwise. With arguments contradicting our own legislation, how can one hope for a positive verdict from the European court? So nothing remains but to accuse the court of bias. (tr. by PDS, posted 20 Novembe 2017)

 

Background articles:
ECHR confronts Russian anti-evangelism law
July 27, 2017
First American missionary caught by anti-evangelism law
August 23, 2016

 


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/.