Kirov LRO and Dmitriyevykh v. Russia, No. 29296/18, ECtHR (Third Section), 10 July 2025

The forced dissolution of religious associations and the designation of religious literature as extremist, resulting in its seizure, in respect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, constitute a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR.

Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation

Art. 9 ECHR
Art. 10 ECHR

1. The dissolution ex officio of a local association of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the Russian government, on the grounds that it constituted an extremist organization whose activities were prohibited, amounts to a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR. This provision protects a wide range of forms of manifestation of thought or religion, including the right to meet peacefully in order to exercise worship in accordance with religious precepts, as well as to do so in places specifically designated for such activity. This represents an essential expression of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, to the extent that the alternative phrasing of Article 9 of the ECHR (“either alone or in community with others”) cannot be interpreted as mutually exclusive or subject to the discretion of the State authorities. Rather, it is a decision entirely entrusted to the individual’s own will.

2. Designating a religious organization as extremist based on a vague and imprecise definition of “extremist activities” constitutes a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR. Indeed, only religious activities or statements that give rise to violence, hatred, or discrimination against others can legitimately warrant suppression as “extremist.” Consequently, authorities that prohibit such activities—for instance, by seizing religious literature or similar writings—must demonstrate that the individuals targeted by the restriction were engaged in violent acts or statements. It is not sufficient that the individuals merely proclaim the superiority of their religion to justify qualifying their activities as “extremist”.

3. The charge of mass dissemination of extremist material under Russian law was based solely on the inclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications in the list of extremist materials and on the intent to disseminate held by those in possession of the writings. The fact that the domestic courts failed to examine the context in which the dissemination occurred, the intentions of the author, or the potential or actual harmful consequences of the act—given that Russian law adopts a formal notion of the offence—did not relieve them of the obligation to justify the interference and to demonstrate that it was necessary in the specific circumstances.. The domestic judges should have taken these factors into account and provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference, which amounted to a violation of Article 9 of the ECHR, as it did not pursue any pressing social need and was not necessary in a democratic society.