D. Litvinov, E. Shestakov. In Naberezhnye Chelny, an Indian citizen was fined under the Yarovaya law and must be expelled from Russia

We publish an article by lawyers Denis Litvinov and Evgeny Shestakov about the situation in Naberezhnye Chelny, where the court two hours after the decision to initiate an administrative case, sentenced Pentecostal citizen of India to a fine for illegal missionary activities and expulsion from Russia. The Supreme Court of Tatarstan confirmed sentence.  

Less than a year after the entry into force of the Ozerov-Yarovaya law, cases of its application in relation to There are already several dozen religious organizations. One of these cases occurred with the Christians of the Evangelical faith in Naberezhnye Chelny. Church of God love” and its clergyman were accused of carrying out an illegal missionary activity. December 20, 2016 by the decision of Naberezhnye Chelny court of the Republic of Tatarstan in case No. 5-1471/2016 clergyman Mani Viktorimmanuvel, an Indian citizen with a residence permit in the Russian Federation, married in a Russian woman and having young children, was fined 30,000 rubles and expelled from Russia.

What is the essence of the case?

Local religious organization "Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith" of God love” of the city of Naberezhnye Chelny held a divine service on December 4, 2016. The church does not have its own building, as is often the case with small religious organizations and religious groups, so they rent non-residential premises from the DC "Fort Dialogue". According to the statement of one of the participants of the event, the clergyman at that time he did not conduct worship, but was engaged in missionary work.

Law enforcement issued a decision on an administrative offense and referred the case to court. The court recognized that it was not a worship service that took place, but an administrative offense under Part. 5 Article. 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, i.e. breach of order carrying out missionary activities.

Based on what facts is this decision made? According to the court, such facts were the lease of non-residential premises in the building of the DC "Fort Dialog" and information about the meetings held (specifically this is what services are called) on the VKontakte social network, where page church . In addition, as follows from the materials of the case, a certain S-v (not a member of the church!), who has been here at least five times, took part in all religious activities and received two printed information materials content indicating the name of the religious organization. It is the transmission information to anyone other than a member, member, or follower of a local religious organization became the main argument in accusing the organization of a missionary activities. In addition, the clergyman did not have a document with him, confirming the right to carry out missionary activity.

Law enforcement officers, along with them and the court, considered that the missionary  activity is proven by the following facts (repeat):

1.  having a lease agreement where not a word is said about missionary work;

2.  information in an open group "Church of God's Love" in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny, posted on a social network "VKontakte", which also does not say that it is persons who are not invited who are members, members or followers of a religious organization;

3.  transfer to citizen S-woo at his request, printed materials of informational content indicating the name of the religious organization, and the citizen subsequently declared law enforcement that he is not a member, participant or follower religious doctrine, and he is drawn into a religious organization.

All the facts presented cannot be used to bring charges because:

1) rent of non-residential premises cannot testify to the presence or organization of a missionary activities;

2) information in the social network about meetings (worship services) was not specifically targeted at persons who did not who are followers of this community, i.e. also did not carry missionary mission.

And the main thing: Federal law "On freedom of conscience and on religious associations" recognizes missionary activities of spreading beliefs in relation to not one, but several persons who are not participants (members, followers) of this religious associations, in order to involve these persons in the composition of participants (members, followers) religious association. In our case, the activity, although similar in external signs with missionary, cannot, according to the letter of the law, be considered such, since it was aimed at only one person. Already on the basis it cannot be recognized as legal. Moreover, as adopted in regarding the clergyman Mani Viktorimmanuvel, the decision does not take into account paragraph 11 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2013 No. 40, where states that expulsion from the country where family members live may violate the right to respect for family life.

In general, the trial was carried out with violations. Yes, they were not judged.  investigated the motives of the behavior of the applicant S-va. It has not been established since for what purpose he decided to attend the service. Location worship is public, respectively, restrict access or generally It is not possible to prevent third parties from entering. According to church members, the structure services did not change regardless of the presence of curious people or interested non-members of the church. Therefore, the court should not interpret the same activity as liturgical or missionary only because of the presence on her third parties, i.e. S-va. In addition, the court did not allow participation in the process a witness who could confirm that the defendant in the administrative offense Mani Victorimmanuvel did not carry out missionary activity, did not hand over printed materials to the applicant, and the fact that the applicant repeatedly (at least four times) was a participant in meetings.

Moreover, it is not clear why It was the clergyman who was accused. Perhaps because he is a foreigner, although he has a residence permit. Unfortunately, neither the prosecutor nor the judge saw the difference between the dissemination information (albeit of a religious nature) and missionary activity, although in paragraph 1 of Art. 24 of the Federal Law "On freedom of conscience and about religious associations” there are clear criteria that separate these concepts. Except In addition, and the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, responding to letters (reply dated July 12, 2016 No. A26-01-A72881592) of citizens concerned about "anti-missionary" amendments, also indicated that for the "missionary activity is characterized by a combination of these features. activity, not containing them cannot be considered as missionary, therefore, on it is not subject to the restrictions established by the Federal Law in relation to missionary activity" .

And finally, the violation is and the very conduct of the trial in Naberezhnye Chelny after only two hours (!!) after the issuance of a decision on an administrative offense. So Thus, the defendants' right to receive qualified legal assistance guaranteed by art. 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Supreme Court The Republic of Tatarstan accounted for the decision of the Naberezhnye Chelny Court substantiated.

religious the organization is preparing a cassation statement to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan.