HOPE IN SUPREME COURT JUSTIFIED
by Vladimir Ozolin
Religiia i Pravo, 28 November 2017
Three judicial instances have passed: magistrate, district, and provincial. And they all in one voice confirmed the guilt of a pastor for committing an administrative violation of law on the basis of part 3 of article 5.26 of the Code of the Russian federation on Administrative Violations of Law, expressed in the absence of identification labels on literature that was located in one of the churches in the city of Ulianovsk.
The police composed a report, seized the unidentified literature, and delivered the materials of the case to the magistrate judge for consideration. The pastor was found guilty. All of the higher courts left the order in the case of administrative violation of law in force. The director of the religious organization paid the fine of 30,000 rubles, but he did not give up, and he reported what had happened to lawyers.
An attorney of the Slavic Legal Center, who is also the director of the legal department of the ROSKhVE [Pentecostals—tr.], Vladimir Ozolin, after study of the materials of the case, filed an appeal in the Russian Supreme Court. In November 2017 the court issued an order according to which the appeal was granted and the judicial actions that had been issued were found to be illegal and were overturned, and the proceedings in the case were terminated. In addition, the confiscated literature was subject to return.
Certainly this decision is very important for us and we agree with it. But nevertheless it does not disclose in its contents the basic problem of the application of the federal law "On freedom of conscience and religious associations" in the part of its requirement of identification markings of all literature located in the premises of churches. The Supreme Court judge does not mention this. Alas, the pastor was held accountable for the fact that the literature simply lay in attached premises in sealed boxes.
The legislature introduced two grounds on which religious literature must have identifying labels: if it is issued and distributed by a religious organization in the conduct of evangelistic activity. In all other instances, the label is not required.
Now, while the Supreme Court has put an end to the dispute on some issues, there has opened for us new possibilities for defending religious organizations. This is not an easy route but we have no choice. This case lasted about eleven months and in the end justice triumphed.
However, it should be remembered that not every decision on the matter should be appealed to the Supreme Court. Inept actions may damage our common cause. (tr. by PDS, posted 29 November 2017)
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/.