39476/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF LUBIN AND ISAKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 39476/21)             JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 26 March 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lubin and Isakov v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 6 March 2025), The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,  Mateja Đurović,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 March 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 Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 August 2021. 2.  In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2025, the Court held, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of the liquidated local religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses by organising services of worship and peacefully practicing their religion in community with others. The Court also decided to award the applicants 7,500 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage. 3.  On 25 February 2025 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that he had learned that Mr Lubin had died on 11 November 2024 and that Ms Tatyana Dmitriyevna Yazovskikh, his wife and heir, had expressed a wish to pursue the application. He accordingly requested the revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. The supporting documents – Mr Lubin’s death certificate, his marriage certificate with Ms Yazovskikh, and an authority form appointing Mr Brady Shane Heath as the representative of Ms Yazovskikh – were submitted on 4 April 2025. 4.  On 22 May 2025 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to dispense with inviting the Government to submit observations, regard being had to the Government’s abstention from participation in the proceedings before it. THE LAW        JURISDICTION AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT 5.  The Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). It further reiterates that the respondent Government are not released from the duty to cooperate with the Court. Nor is the Court prevented from continuing with the examination of applications where it retains jurisdiction (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia ((dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, §§ 435-39, 30 November 2022, and Svetova and Others v. Russia, no. 54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023). The Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate from a party’s failure or refusal to participate effectively in the proceedings (Rule 44C of the Rules of Court).       THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 6.  The applicants’ representative requested revision of the judgment of 6 March 2025, because the first applicant – Mr Lubin – had died before the judgment had been adopted. His wife, Ms Yazovskikh, was the heir and should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased. 7.  The Government submitted no observations on the request for revision. 8.  The Court considers that the judgment of 6 March 2025 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide: “A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment. ...” 9.  The Court accordingly decides to award Ms Yazovskikh the amount it previously awarded to Mr Lubin, namely EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. 10.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;      Decides to revise its judgment in the case of Lubin and Isakov v. Russia of 6 March 2025, in so far as it concerns the application of Article 41 of the Convention in respect of Mr Lubin;      Holds, accordingly,  that the respondent State is to pay Ms Tatyana Yazovskikh, Mr Aleksandr Lubin’s heir, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand and five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh  Acting Deputy Registrar President