Background
Four Ukrainian nationals and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (a US-based organisation) lodged an application against Russia in March 2019. They challenged a judgment of the “Supreme Court of the Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) dated 26 September 2018, which banned as “extremist” an unregistered religious association of Jehovah’s Witnesses operating in the DPR — a separatist entity within internationally recognised Ukrainian territory that Russia has controlled at least since 11 May 2014.
The DPR’s ban was imposed under legislation modelled on Russia’s own anti-extremism framework, the same legal apparatus the ECtHR had already condemned in the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (nos. 32401/10 and others, 7 June 2022), which concerned the forced dissolution and banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses organisations across Russia and the persecution of their members. The applicant organisation also challenged DPR court decisions banning nine Jehovah’s Witnesses publications issued between 2017 and 2018.
Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022. The Court nonetheless confirmed jurisdiction ratione temporis because the impugned facts arose before that date, and confirmed jurisdiction ratione loci because Russia exercised effective control over the DPR territory where the events occurred.
The Court’s Holding
The Committee, sitting unanimously, held that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention in respect of the four individual applicants. Applying the principles established in Taganrog LRO and Others, the Court found that banning the applicants’ religious association as “extremist” and thereby restricting their ability to practise their religion collectively constituted an unjustified interference with those rights. The fact that the ban was formally issued by a DPR court did not alter Russia’s responsibility, given its effective control over the territory and the transplantation of its own anti-extremism legislation there.
The complaints by the applicant organisation (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania) were declared inadmissible. The organisation’s challenge to the banning of nine publications had been introduced outside the six-month time-limit then applicable under Article 35 § 1, as those decisions entered into force immediately and were not subject to appeal. The Court further declined to examine the remaining individual complaints under Articles 6, 11, 14, 17, and 18, having already addressed the principal legal questions raised.
Russia was ordered to pay each of the four individual applicants EUR 7,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, within three months, with default interest thereafter at the ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
Key Takeaways
- Russia bears Convention responsibility for acts of the “DPR” authorities that occurred before 16 September 2022, the date Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR, because it exercised effective control over that territory from at least 11 May 2014.
- Banning a Jehovah’s Witnesses association as “extremist” under DPR legislation mirroring Russia’s anti-extremism framework violates Article 11 read in the light of Article 9, consistent with the Court’s earlier ruling in Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia.
- Challenges to publication bans must be lodged within the six-month time-limit running from the date the relevant decisions became final; decisions that enter into force immediately and are not subject to appeal start that clock at once.
- Where the principal legal question has been answered, the Court may decline to examine remaining complaints under other Convention provisions.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces the Court’s consistent line that Russia’s anti-extremism legislation, as applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses, is incompatible with the Convention — and extends that accountability into Russian-controlled separatist territories in eastern Ukraine. Even after Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe, the Court retains jurisdiction over pre-September 2022 conduct, meaning the legal consequences of Russia’s actions in the Donbas region continue to be adjudicated in Strasbourg.
For practitioners, the case illustrates the Court’s attribution framework for state responsibility over non-government-controlled areas and the procedural strictness of the six-month admissibility rule, particularly where local decisions are immediately final and non-appealable. It also signals that judgments against Russia in this line of cases will follow the damages template set in Taganrog LRO and Others (EUR 7,500 per individual applicant).