On the first of October this month the ECHR held unanimously that Russia has violated Article 9 (read in the light of Article 11) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the state to pay damages to the claimants (Mr Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Kimlya and Mr Aidar Rustemovich Sultanov), members of a Church of Scientology in Nizhnekamsk and Surgut City, Russia.

The first applicant registered the Church as a non- religious organisation in 1994. After the passing of a new law in 1995 the organisation was required to re-register but in 1999 their application was refused on the ground that the Church (known as “Surgut Humanitarian Dianetics Centre” at the time) was religious in nature.

On the 1st of October 1997 the “Religious Act” (or the Federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations) came into force, this meant that religious groups had to register and had to show legal documents proving that they had been in place for 15 years. When the first and second applicants (respectively the Churches of the City of Surgut and of Nizhnekamsk) applied for registration they were refused for failing to show legal documents proving that they had been in place for at least 15 years.

In previous case law the ECHR has already debated on this question in the case of the Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia (2007) where the court stated that Scientology was a religious organisation and under Articles 9 and 11 the applicants were allowed to exercise their rights of freedom of religion without state interference. In previous Russian case law the Constitutional court has allowed the appeals of other religious organisations such as Jehova’s Witnesses.

There is much debate in Europe whether Scientology should have a status of religious organisation or not. In Belgium, France, Germany and the United Kingdom Scientology is a non religious organisation but through court action it has gained a religious status in countries such as Spain and Portugal. The ECHR judges stated that it was not their role to decide whether or not Scientology is a religion – the Court considered that it had to rely on the position of the domestic authorities in determining the applicability of Article 9. As the Russian authorities had been convinced of the religious nature of Surgut and Nizhnekamsk Churches of Scientology, the Court considered that Article 9 was applicable in the case. Moreover, given that religious communities exist in the form of organised structures and that the complaint concerned the alleged restriction on the right to associate freely with fellow believers, Article 9 also had to be examined in the light of Article 11 which safeguarded associative life against unjustified State interference.

The Court found that the lack of legal personality and the restricted scope of rights of religious groups under the Russian Religions Act did not allow their members to effectively enjoy their right to freedom of religion and association. There had therefore been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 9 interpreted in the light of Article 11. That interference had been prescribed by law, namely the Religions Act, and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order.

However, the ground for refusing registration had been purely formal and unconnected with their actual functioning. Moreover, the contested provision of the Religions Act had targeted base-level religious communities that could not prove either their presence in a given Russian region or their affiliation with a centralised religious organisation. This meant that only those newly emerging religious groups, such as Scientology groups, that did not form part of a strictly hierarchical church structure had been affected by the “15-year rule”. The Government had not given any justification for this differential treatment.

Thus, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion and association had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11.

As mentioned above, previous case law shows that the Russian Constitutional Court has in the past recognised other similar groups (Jehova’s Witnesses) as religious organisations.

The judgement is fully available on the ECHR website