Here’s a breakdown of the Kirov LRO and Dmitriyevykh v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) in conjunction with Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. This violation stemmed from the prosecution of Mr. Dmitriyevykh for distributing religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses that were labeled as “extremist” material under Russian law. The Court emphasized that Russian courts did not adequately assess the context, intentions, or potential harm of the distribution, focusing solely on the formal classification of the material. The ECtHR struck out the part of the application lodged by the Kirov local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, finding that the main legal issue has already been determined in the case of Taganrog LRO and Others.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Partial Strike Out:** The application by Kirov LRO was struck out because a similar case (Taganrog LRO and Others) had already addressed the issue of forced dissolution of the organization.
* **Violation of Article 9:** The core of the decision focuses on Mr. Dmitriyevykh’s prosecution. The Court referenced the Taganrog LRO and Others case, reiterating that Russia’s application of its extremism laws to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications was overly formalistic and failed to consider the specific circumstances of dissemination.
* **Remaining Complaint:** The Court decided that the additional complaint under Article 14 did not require separate examination.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded Mr. Dmitriyevykh 7,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Key Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the ECtHR’s stance against the overly broad application of Russian extremism laws, particularly concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses.
* It highlights the importance of assessing the context, intent, and potential harm when restricting freedom of religion and expression, rather than relying solely on the formal classification of materials.
* The reference to the Taganrog LRO and Others case is crucial, as it establishes a precedent for similar cases involving the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.
: This decision has implications for understanding the scope of religious freedom and the limitations on applying anti-extremism legislation, particularly in the context of Russia’s treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It may be relevant to cases involving similar restrictions on religious expression affecting Ukrainians, especially in territories under Russian control or influence.
