15224/19

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BATUKHTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 15224/19) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Batukhtin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Faris Vehabović, Anne Louise Bormann, judges, and Uğur Erdal, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Ukrainian nationals and a United States organisation (“the applicants”) on 18March 2019. 2.The applicants were represented by MrPetr Muzny and Mr Shane H. Brady, lawyers practising in Geneva and London, respectively. 3.The Russian Government were given notice of the application. 4.The Ukrainian Government made written submissions as a State of the individual applicants’ nationality (Article36 §1 of the Convention). THE FACTS 5.A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 6.The applicants complained principally of the banning as “extremist” of the unregistered religious association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the separatist entity “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) by a judgment of “Supreme Court of the DPR” dated 26September 2018. They further raised additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Jurisdiction 7.The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v.Russia [GC], nos.40792/10 and 2 others, §§68‑73, 17January 2023). 8.The Court further reiterates that, where the facts complained of occurred in the territory under the control of the separatist entity “DPR”, the Russian Federation has exercised jurisdiction over that territory at least since 11May 2014 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.Russia [GC], nos.8019/16 and 3 others, §§363-66, 9July 2025). Accordingly, the events the applicants complained of fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the Court has competence to examine them. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION READ IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 9 9.The applicants complained principally that the banning as “extremist” of the association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, of which they were members, and the resulting restrictions on their ability to practise their religion collectively amounted to an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of religion and their right to freedom of association. 10.In the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v.Russia (nos.32401/10 and 19 others, 7June 2022), the Court found violations of Article9, read in the light of Article11, and of Articles10 and 11, read in the light of Article9, on account of the forced dissolution and banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious organisations in Russia and the persecution of their individual members under the Russian anti-extremism legislation. 11.As the same restrictions are at issue in the instant case, and having regard to the fact that the applicants’ religious association was banned by the “Supreme Court of the DPR” operating within the internationally recognised sovereign territory of Ukraine through the application of legislation modelled on the Russian anti-extremism framework (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.Russia, cited above, §§1269-77), the Court considers that the complaint under Article11, read in the light of Article9, is admissible and discloses a breach of that provision. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.In so far as the applicant organisation complained under Articles6 and 10 of the Convention about the banning of nine publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the “DPR” (“Supreme Court of the DPR”, decisions of 7 and 19July, 27 October, 27 November and 13December 2017 and 15March 2018, all of which entered into force immediately and were not subject to appeal), the Court notes that this complaint was introduced outside the six‑month time-limit set out in Article35 §1 of the Convention as in force at the material time. It must accordingly be rejected as inadmissible. 13.The applicants further raised complaints under Articles6, 11, 14 (in conjunction with Articles9 and 11), 17 and 18 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and to its finding of a violation above, the Court considers that it has addressed the principal legal questions raised and that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the remaining complaints (see Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, §§286-87, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.Romania [GC], no.47848/08, §156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.Regard being had to its case‑law (see Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, §300), the Court considers it reasonable to award each individual applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints by the individual applicants admissibleand the complaints by the applicant organisation inadmissible; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application; Holds that there has been a violation of Article11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article9, in respect of the individual applicants; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; Holds that the respondent State is to pay each individual applicant, within three months, EUR7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Ugur ErdalLorraine Schembri Orland Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth 1. Yevgen Anatoliyovych BATUKHTIN 2. Oleksandr Volodymyrovych GERBUT 3. Mykola Mykhaylovych GRYNEVYCH 4. WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA 5. Andriy Oleksandrovych YEFREMOV 1963