Source: www.forum18.org
Date: June 5, 2026
https://www.forum18.org/archiv
By Victoria Arnold, Forum 18
Religious organisations in Russia continue to be prosecuted for not showing
their official full names on literature, online, and on their buildings.
Guidance issued by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court in 2019 and
2020 has gone some way towards clarifying how and where names should be
displayed, which may have resulted in an overall decrease in cases.
Quantifying this accurately, however, is impossible as there is no publicly
accessible centralised database of court cases and other records are
patchy. The guidance also appears to have led to a shift from most cases
being based on a lack of physical signage to most being based on unlabelled
literature.
According to a Moscow-based lawyer who has worked on such cases, after the
Supreme Court clarified that the existence of "freely accessible" religious
literature can constitute "distribution" as part of missionary activity,
"law enforcement officers began to look for unmarked literature. It's
easier. You can always find it. And a wave of cases [based on] unlabelled
literature began" (see below).
Registered religious organisations are prosecuted under Administrative Code
Article 5.26, Part 3 ("Implementation of activities by a religious
organisation without indicating its official full name, including the
issuing or distribution, within the framework of missionary activity, of
literature and printed, audio, and video material without a label bearing
this name, or with an incomplete or deliberately false label") (see below).
According to the limited available court records, seen by Forum 18, 52
cases are known to have reached court between the beginning of January 2025
and the end of April 2026. These involved 43 registered religious
organisations and 9 individuals. Most resulted in convictions and fines.
(See forthcoming F18News article for a list of the known prosecutions.)
It is unknown how many prosecutions there may have been, as cases under
Part 3 are heard in magistrates' courts, of which there are more than 7,000
across the country. There is no publicly accessible centralised database of
magistrates' courts, other nationwide databases have recently gone offline,
only a handful of regional databases exist, and magistrates' courts
themselves can vary in their provision of publicly available records.
Establishing accurate figures is therefore difficult if communities do not
themselves make prosecutions known.
Of 52 known cases in 2025 and the first four months of 2026, Forum 18 found
that:
- 28 related to printed religious literature;
- 13 related to signage on or inside places of worship;
- 5 related to online materials;
- and the grounds for bringing the remaining 8 prosecutions were unknown
(see below).
(These figures add up to more than the overall total of prosecutions in
2025-26 because police and prosecutors alleged that some defendants had
committed more than one type of violation.)
In three cases related to religious literature which should have been
labelled with religious organisations' official full names, judges ordered
its destruction (including that of a New Testament). The Magistrate's Court
in Moscow did not respond to Forum 18's question as to why the Judge had
ordered the destruction of the New Testament and other seized literature.
The Bailiffs' Department did not respond as to whether and how it had
destroyed the books and whether the copy of the New Testament had been
among them. In a further 14 cases, literature (including copies of the
Bible and Koran) was ordered confiscated (see below).
Among cases for online activity, a Seventh-day Adventist church in
Yoshkar-Ola was fined 35,000 Roubles (equivalent of about 2 weeks' average
wage for an individual) because the Federal Security Service (FSB) had
found it had not labelled podcast episodes with its official full name on
its Yandex Music page, while the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow was
fined 30,000 Roubles because it had used an abbreviated version of its name
on its website and Telegram channel (see below).
Police and prosecutors still sometimes bring cases against individuals,
even though only legal entities can be liable under Part 3. A few judges
even convict individuals, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has
repeatedly clarified this point in its reviews of judicial practice (see
below).
In November 2020, the Constitutional Court resolved both that a religious
organisation did not have to display its official full name at its
registered address if it in fact carried out its activities elsewhere, and
that it could fulfil the legal obligation to display its official full name
by having a sign inside its premises. To insist otherwise, the Court ruled,
"would mean excessive state interference in the sphere of freedom of
conscience" (see below).
In June 2019, the Supreme Court stated that the distribution of religious
materials "within the framework of missionary activity" should be
interpreted as "not only their delivery to specific individuals, but also
as ensuring free access to them for an indefinite number of people outside
of places specially designated for the implementation of religious
activity" (see below).
Lawyers who have dealt with Part 3 cases have mixed views of this guidance.
Some believe the situation has improved for religious communities, while
others state that the absence of reliable data means that this is not
possible to ascertain (see below).
In court decisions examined by Forum 18, the Supreme Court review and
Constitutional Court resolution are acknowledged by some, but not all
judges, and do not seem to have led to a rise in acquittals (see below).
The relative increase in literature-related cases as compared to cases
based on absence of signage suggests that the Constitutional Court
resolution has had a positive effect on the number of prosecutions for the
latter (see below).
Eighteen of Russia's 83 federal subjects saw at least one prosecution
between the beginning of January 2025 and the end of April 2026. Most
prosecutions found by Forum 18 were of Muslim organisations, although the
reason for this is unclear (see forthcoming F18News article).
Many cases involve very similar circumstances. Nevertheless, outcomes may
differ widely as a result of judges' varying interpretations of the law
itself, of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court's rulings, and the
seriousness of the alleged violations (see below).
Some Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 prosecutions in 2025-26
appear to be one of several means for state authorities to exert pressure
on particular religious communities. In Bryansk, officials targeted League
of Salvation Pentecostal church, "one of the region's most socially active
churches", lawyer Sergey Chugunov wrote. As well as a Part 3 fine, the
church has been inspected and searched several times, and a criminal case
has been launched (see forthcoming F18News article).
Also targeted was the Evangelical Church of the Holy Trinity in the Moscow
Region town of Balashikha. As well as a Part 3 case (which a court returned
to prosecutors), the church faced inspections from numerous state agencies
and a fine for allegedly failing to appear at a pre-arranged meeting. "The
prosecutor's office is turning into some kind of punitive body, not at all
a supervisory or law enforcement agency," Pastor Roman Zhukov complained.
"Without any investigation, they're already presuming us guilty" (see
forthcoming F18News article).
The Russian authorities are similarly imposing punishments under Russian
Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 in parts of Ukraine they illegally
occupy, including in Donetsk Region
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Background
Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 ("Implementation of activities by
a religious organisation without indicating its official full name,
including the issuing or distribution, within the framework of missionary
activity, of literature and printed, audio, and video material without a
label bearing this name, or with an incomplete or deliberately false
label") came into force in July 2016
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 4 ("Russians conducting missionary
activity") and Part 5 ("Foreigners conducting missionary activity").
Article 5.26, Part 3 introduced punishment for violations of Religion Law
Article 8, Paragraph 8, which states that "A religious organisation is
obliged to indicate its full name when carrying out activities". This
requirement had been in force since the Religion Law's adoption in 1997,
but before 2016 had not had an associated administrative offence.
A religious organisation's official full name must indicate its religious
affiliation and its organisational and legal form ("Centralised Religious
Organisation", "Local Religious Organisation", etc.). It therefore tends to
be long and complicated, but use of an abbreviated form may incur
prosecution.
The "anti-missionary" amendments were introduced as part of an
"anti-terrorism" package of legislation proposed by Duma deputies Irina
Yarovaya, Nadezhda Gerasimova, and Aleksey Pushkov, and Senator Viktor
Ozerov (all from United Russia) and adopted in July 2016
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Possible punishments
The Administrative Code specifies that cases under Article 5.26 can be
brought by the police, Prosecutor's Offices, or local Justice Departments.
Under Article 5.26, Part 3, religious organisations may be fined 30,000 to
50,000 Roubles with the possible confiscation of any materials involved in
the alleged offence. Such materials may later be destroyed (see below).
A fine of 30,000 Roubles is equivalent of about 10 days' average wage for
an individual.
According to court decisions, judges may also decide to issue only a
warning, because of the "insignificance of the offence", or because the
alleged offence posed no threat to life, health, property, cultural
heritage, the environment, or state security.
Constitutional Court and Supreme Court guidance: Greater clarity?
In June 2019, Russia's Supreme Court issued a review of judicial practice
(https://www.consultant.ru/doc
Administrative Code Article 5.26.
For Part 3, the Court issued three clarifications:
- firstly, that "labelling" [markirovka] refers to "the application, in any
form (printed, handwritten, or otherwise), of [a religious organisation's]
full official name to any materials – both those produced by the
organisation itself and those produced by other organisations but used in
[the religious organisation's] missionary work";
- secondly, that "the distribution of religious literature and materials
for religious purposes within the framework of missionary activity should
be understood as not only their delivery to specific individuals, but also
as ensuring free access to them for an indefinite number of people outside
of places specially designated for the implementation of religious
activity";
- and thirdly, that only legal entities can be subject to prosecution under
Part 3.
"In other words, if distribution occurs on premises owned or used by a
religious organisation, labelling is not required", lawyer Sergey Chugunov
points out (https://t.me/chugunovsv/21), referring to the second provision.
"Once the materials are removed from the premises, labelling becomes
mandatory."
In the cases found by Forum 18 in 2025-26, judges frequently acknowledge
this provision, but tend to interpret it to the detriment of religious
organisations – if there is unlabelled literature on their premises, they
are deemed guilty of allowing free access to it.
Chugunov believes that the Supreme Court's guidance should have dealt with
this issue. He noted in 2023 (https://t.me/chugunovsv/184) that most such
cases were being resolved before reaching court "by setting out the legal
position and citing case law". When cases do reach court, however, "the
legal aspect plays a lesser role".
"In my purely personal opinion, the main question in such cases is whether
a young magistrate will be able to dismiss the case brought by the
[Interior Ministry] Centre for Countering Extremism," Chugunov concludes.
"It's best not to let it get to that point."
In November 2020, Russia's Constitutional Court heard an appeal by Word of
Life Church in Dolgoprudny. The Moscow Region church had been prosecuted
under Part 3 for displaying its official full name inside the entrance to
its building but not on the land plot on which it stood. The Court found
the disputed legislation constitutional, but issued some clarifications
(https://www.ksrf.ru/doc/KSRFD
3 court decisions should be reconsidered.
The Constitutional Court ruled, firstly, that a religious organisation does
not have to display its official full name at the address at which it is
registered, as long as it does not carry out any activities at that
address, "since this information is contained in the Unified State Register
of Legal Entities, being open and publicly available".
Secondly and most significantly, the Court ruled that "for a religious
organisation to fulfil its obligation under the contested legal provisions
to indicate its official full name when carrying out its activities, it is
sufficient to post information about this name inside a residential
building at the entrance to the premises it uses".
"Otherwise, it would mean excessive state interference in the sphere of
freedom of conscience, guaranteed to everyone by Article 28 of the
Constitution of the Russian Federation and recognised by Article 9 of the
[European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms."
The requirement to display the official full name "cannot be considered
excessive", the Court noted, as it is "primarily intended to ensure that
citizens who enter into relations with the organisation can clearly
understand which religious organisation – among the many – they are
dealing with".
Nevertheless, "the fundamental principle of freedom of religion does not
require religious organisations, unlike some other types of legal entities,
to ensure unlimited access to the places where they conduct their
activities", and therefore "ensuring unlimited access to a religious
organisation's place of activity, and consequently informing the general
public directly at the religious organisation's place of activity of its
official full name, cannot be considered an absolute obligation".
This Constitutional Court resolution was greeted positively by lawyers who
have handled Part 3 prosecutions. Having to put up signs at the entrances
to apartment buildings, private homes, or business centres where religious
organisations only use part of the premises is "excessive", Konstantin
Yerofeyev of the St Petersburg Bar Association told Advokatskaya Gazeta on
9 November 2020
(https://www.advgazeta.ru/novo
The 2020 resolution "guarantees a balance between a religious
organisation's right to practice and disseminate its faith freely and
citizens' right to information," Yerofeyev added.
"Although the ruling does not resolve all issues related to the application
of the contested provisions, its adoption will allow religious
organisations to avoid unjustified fines", Sergey Chugunov of the Slavic
Centre for Law and Justice commented to Advokatskaya Gazeta.
The situation with Part 3 prosecutions sometimes "reaches the point of
absurdity", according to Stanislav Kulov of the Karachay-Cherkessiya Bar
Association. "A fine can be imposed even if there is a sign with the name
on the front door of the premises, but not on the gate of the property." He
added that he hopes the resolution will have a positive impact on the law's
application and will stem the "flurry" of Part 3 cases.
Police, prosecutors "will come up with new grounds for prosecution"
It appears from the cases found by Forum 18 in 2025-26 that the
Constitutional Court ruling has indeed had an effect on Administrative Code
Article 5.26, Part 3 cases. Those involving physical signage are largely
based on the complete absence of signs rather than their disputed location,
and their number in comparison to literature-based prosecutions has
decreased significantly.
"In my opinion, the situation has improved somewhat due to greater clarity
about what is and is not permitted," a Moscow-based lawyer who has worked
on such cases commented to Forum 18 on 26 May. "Law enforcement agencies
have stopped arbitrarily interpreting how a sign with a religious
organisation's name should be placed, and have stopped initiating cases for
improperly placed signs."
The lawyer does not, however, believe that the Constitutional Court or
Supreme Court guidance has necessarily led to an absolute decrease in
prosecutions. "It does not affect the number of protocols. [Police and
prosecutors] will come up with new grounds for prosecution. That's easy to
do."
Judges do not, however, always abide by the guidance. For example,
Pyatigorsk Magistrate's Court No. 9 (Stavropol Region) fined the Local
Religious Organisation of Christians of Evangelical Faith Church of the
Love of Christ 30,000 Roubles on 12 May 2025, despite the fact that the
church did have a sign with its official full name inside the room in which
it held services.
Police charged the church with failing to indicate its official full name
on the residential building where it carried out its activities, the
address of which was not in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.
The church's lawyer pointed out that there was a sign inside the prayer
room, and argued that the law does not specify a required location.
The judge cited the 2020 Constitutional Court resolution, arguing that the
church should have had a sign on the building as it is registered at a
different address. The judge concluded that placing the sign inside the
building "limits the rights of citizens who wish to join this religious
movement to attend religious events, and does not exclude the accidental
attendance of such events by citizens who do not wish to participate in
them".
The church appealed unsuccessfully on 17 July 2025 at Pyatigorsk City
Court.
Forum 18 wrote to Stavropol Region's branch of the Interior Ministry,
Pyatigorsk Magistrate's Court No. 9, and Pyatigorsk City Court on 26 May,
asking why the church had been prosecuted and convicted in light of the
Constitutional Court's 2020 resolution. Only Pyatigorsk City Court
responded, on 28 May, not answering this question but directing Forum 18 to
enquire at the court of first instance.
More prosecutions for unlabelled religious literature
The Constitutional Court guidance appears to have led to a decrease in
prosecutions for lack of signage on buildings. At the same time, the
Supreme Court guidance appears to have resulted in a relative increase in
prosecutions for unlabelled religious literature. The increase came despite
the fact that the guidance could – and according to some lawyers should
– be interpreted as meaning that literature kept on the premises of a
religious organisation (in "places specifically designated for religious
activity") does not need to be labelled.
"Cases involving 'signage' became irrelevant after the Russian
Constitutional Court clarified that there are no legally established
requirements for their placement. Conversely, after the [Supreme Court]
clarified that freely accessible religious literature can be considered as
being distributed as part of missionary activity, and therefore subject to
labelling, law enforcement officers began to look for unmarked literature,"
the Moscow-based lawyer who has worked on such cases commented to Forum 18
on 29 May. "It's easier. You can always find it. And a wave of cases [based
on] unlabelled literature began. Now it's on trend."
Lack of consistency in court rulings
Many cases under Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 ("Implementation
of activities by a religious organisation without indicating its official
full name, including the issuing or distribution, within the framework of
missionary activity, of literature and printed, audio, and video material
without a label bearing this name, or with an incomplete or deliberately
false label") involve very similar circumstances. Nevertheless, their
outcomes may differ widely as a result of judges' varying interpretations
both of the law itself and the seriousness of the alleged violations.
The Supreme Court's stipulation that "distribution" of religious literature
"within the framework of missionary activity" should be understood "not
only as their delivery to specific individuals, but also as ensuring free
access to them for an indefinite number of people outside of places
specially designated for the implementation of religious activity" is at
the root of many of these discrepancies.
"Courts may make opposing contradictory decisions," the Moscow-based lawyer
who has worked on such cases told Forum 18 on 29 May. "I have seen many of
these."
The Local Religious Organisation "Society for Krishna Consciousness of the
City of Moscow" (fined for unlabelled books in a locked storage area) was
successful in its appeal against a December 2025 conviction. By contrast,
the Religious Organisation "Buddhist Centre Padmasambhava", also
Moscow-based, which was fined for a similar offence, had its appeal
rejected.
On 7 July 2025, Yoshkar-Ola Magistrate's Court No. 9 (Mari El Republic)
acquitted the Local Religious Organisation "Local Church of Seventh-day
Adventist Christians 'Central'" explicitly because its premises were in
fact "a place specifically designated for religious activity" by virtue of
an agreement of free use, and therefore literature kept there did not need
to be labelled.
Conversely, for instance, the Local Religious Organisation Podolsk
Community of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Moscow Region) received a
fine of 30,000 Roubles on 19 November 2025, when the judge at Podolsk
Magistrate's Court No. 186, citing the Supreme Court's 2019 review,
concluded that books on a shelf in a corridor on the church's premises were
indeed freely accessible to the public.
Korolyov Magistrate's Court No. 90, also in Moscow Region, fined the
Centralised Religious Organisation "Spiritual Assembly of Muslims of Moscow
Region" 30,000 Roubles on 2 October 2025 because a prosecutor's office
inspection had found a single unlabelled Arabic-language book on the rented
premises of a local Muslim community which is associated with the
centralised organisation. The judge cited the Supreme Court review, but did
not accept the defence argument that the premises were "specially
designated for religious activity".
Broad interpretation of the law?
Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 refers only to the "activity" of
religious organisations, during which they must display their full official
names, without further specification. Consequently, religious organisations
can be prosecuted for not displaying their full official names while doing
a wide range of different things.
As noted above, the full official name must indicate the religious
affiliation of a religious association and its organisational and legal
form ("Centralised Religious Organisation", "Local Religious Organisation",
etc.). It therefore tends to be long and complicated, but use of an
abbreviated form may incur prosecution.
In 2025 and the first four months of 2026, Forum 18 found that the majority
of prosecutions were for allegedly "distributing within the framework of
missionary activity" religious literature or other materials which were not
labelled with the organisation's official full name – a total of 28
cases. A further 13 cases involved a lack of signage on or inside places of
worship. Five cases involved online materials, and the grounds for eight
prosecutions remain unknown.
These figures add up to more than the overall total of prosecutions in
2025-26 because police and prosecutors alleged that some defendants had
committed more than one type of violation.
Cases based on online materials include:
– a Seventh-day Adventist church in Yoshkar-Ola (Mari El Republic), fined
35,000 Roubles because the Federal Security Service (FSB) had found it had
not labelled podcast episodes with its official full name on its Yandex
Music page;
– the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow, which used an abbreviated
version of its name on its website and Telegram channel and was fined
30,000 Roubles;
– a Pentecostal church in Tyumen which prosecutors charged (among other
violations) with not including its official full name in a Word document
available for download on its website (the church was acquitted);
– the Association of Orthodox Communities of the Apostolic Tradition,
also fined 30,000 Roubles for using an abbreviated form of its name on its
website and Telegram channel;
– a Pentecostal church in Yoshkar-Ola, which received a warning for not
displaying its official full name in a pinned post on a Telegram channel.
Centralised religious organisations punished for local communities' actions
Another indication of broad interpretation of Administrative Code Article
5.26, Part 3 is the issue of centralised religious organisations being
punished for the alleged failure of associated local religious communities
to display its name. As well as the example of the Spiritual Assembly of
Muslims of Moscow Region (see above), and the case of the League of
Salvation Pentecostal church in Bryansk (see forthcoming F18News article),
Krasnoyarsk Muftiyat was also found guilty in these circumstances.
On 29 August 2025, Soviet District Magistrate's Court No. 81 (on behalf of
Magistrate's Court No. 86) fined the Centralised Religious Organisation
Unified Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Krasnoyarsk Region
(Krasnoyarsk Muftiyat) 30,000 Roubles under Part 3. A prosecutor's office
inspection in Bolshaya Murta District (about 100km north of the city of
Krasnoyarsk) had found that a prayer room was operating without displaying
a sign with the centralised religious organisation's official full name.
Forum 18 wrote to Krasnoyarsk Regional Prosecutor's Office and both
magistrates' courts on 26 May, asking why the Muftiyat had been prosecuted
and convicted for the alleged actions of a separate, unregistered religious
association. Forum 18 had received no responses by the end of the working
day in Krasnoyarsk of 5 June. The Muftiyat has also not responded to Forum
18's written questions about the case.
Confiscation, destruction of religious literature
Forum 18 found 17 cases in 2025-26 in which judges ordered the confiscation
of religious literature which had allegedly been "distributed within the
framework of missionary activity" (and should therefore have been labelled
with the religious organisations' official full names) and which police or
prosecutors had seized when they searched the religious organisations'
premises. In three of these cases, the literature was also ordered
destroyed.
In earlier cases, judges have ordered that books by the late Turkish Muslim
theologian Said Nursi, as well as other Muslim texts, as well as Jehovah's
Witness publications, be destroyed
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
court in Russian-occupied Ukraine ordered seized Bibles and hymnbooks
destroyed (https://www.forum18.org/archi
(In other cases in 2025-26, judges ordered seized literature to be returned
to its owners. It is unclear why some cases end in confiscation while
others do not.)
Ten of these 17 cases involved Islamic literature, two Seventh-day
Adventist, one Catholic, one Pentecostal, one Methodist, one Buddhist, and
one Society for Krishna Consciousness.
In four cases – three in Moscow and one in the Moscow Region – judges
ordered the confiscation of copies of the Koran. In another, unlawfully
brought against a Methodist pastor in Kabardino-Balkariya, the judge
ordered the confiscation of two Bibles and a separate copy of the New
Testament.
In October 2025, according to the schedule of planned inspections of
non-commercial organisations on the Justice Ministry website, Justice
Ministry officials in Moscow carried out a documentary inspection of the
Moscow branch of Caritas, the international Catholic aid network (Religious
Organisation Catholic Centre "Caritas of the Archdiocese of the Mother of
God in Moscow").
According to the written decision available on the Moscow magistrates'
courts portal, on 2 December 2025 prosecutors summoned the director, Yelena
Poslanchik, and drew up a protocol against the organisation under Article
5.26, Part 3. Prosecutors accused Caritas of distributing, "within the
framework of missionary activity", five books not labelled with its
official full name "by ensuring free access to this literature for an
indefinite number of persons". It is unclear from the court decision how
these books came to prosecutors' attention or where they were kept.
Judge Nikolay Vorobyov of Timiryazevsky District Magistrate's Court No. 335
issued Caritas with a warning rather than a fine. The judge decided that
the offence had caused no harm to life, health, property, the environment,
or cultural heritage. Despite this, he ordered that the books be
confiscated and destroyed by bailiffs.
Among the five books was one named in the court decision as "With love from
the Lord, the Word of Life, the New Testament in perfect [sovershennom]
translation". It appears that this title in fact refers to "With love from
the Lord. The Word of Life: the New Testament in modern [sovremennom]
translation", a Russian translation produced by the International Bible
Society in 1991 (this particular edition was published in Minsk in 1993).
Forum 18 wrote to Magistrate's Court No. 335 on 26 May to ask why Judge
Vorobyov had ordered the destruction of the seized literature, and in
particular, why he had considered it necessary for a New Testament to be
destroyed.
Forum 18 also wrote to Koptevsky District Bailiffs' Department to ask
whether and how it had destroyed the books and whether the copy of the New
Testament had been among them.
Forum 18 had received no response from either court or bailiffs by the
afternoon of the working day in Moscow of 5 June. Caritas has also not
responded to Forum 18's written questions about the case.
Wrongful prosecutions of individuals still taking place
Forum 18 found that nine individuals (one woman, eight men) were unlawfully
brought to court in 2025 and the first four months of 2026 under
Administrative Code Article 5.26, Part 3 – nearly a decade after this
point was first clarified by Russia's Supreme Court.
Only legal entities are subject to prosecution under Part 3, as the law
itself only explicitly mentions religious organisations. The Supreme Court
clarified this in a ruling of 7 November 2017 (which upheld the appeal of a
Pentecostal pastor who argued that Part 3, as written, could not apply
either to private citizens or people employed in an official capacity). It
reiterated it in its review of judicial practice of 26 June 2019.
In the nine cases involving individuals, three people received fines.
First-instance courts acquitted two (a Muslim religious group's leader in
the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region and a Seventh-day Adventist assistant
pastor in Kabardino-Balkariya) and sent three cases back to police or
prosecutors. The outcome of one case remains unknown.
Police in Kayasula (Stavropol Region) charged imam Muslim Menglibulatov
with having "carried out the activities of a religious organisation-mosque"
while displaying "no information, either outside the building or inside the
premises, indicating that this religious organisation was located and
operating at this address". He admitted guilt and Neftekumsk Magistrate's
Court No. 2 fined him 30,000 Roubles on 20 May 2025. He did not appeal.
In the spring of 2025, officers of the police, FSB, and Centre for
Countering Extremism searched the home of Methodist pastor Svetlana
Getmanets, where her church meets for worship. A magistrate's court in
Nalchik (Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya) subsequently found her guilty of
keeping on the premises two Bibles, a New Testament, and a hymn book which
were not labelled with the church's official full name, and were "freely
available to all citizens visiting this religious organisation, and not
only to its members". The judge imposed a 30,000 Rouble fine plus
confiscation of the books.
Pastor Getmanets argued in her appeal that only legal entities are liable
under Article 5.26, Part 3, and that according to the Supreme Court,
literature does not have to be labelled if kept in "a place specially
designated for religious activity". Despite this, Nalchik City Court upheld
her conviction on 1 July 2025 (but reduced her fine by half).
Levon Chamyan, the leader of the "Bible League" Evangelical church in Sochi
(Krasnodar Region) received a fine of 50,000 Roubles on 7 March 2025 at
Lazarevsky District Magistrate's Court No. 94. He had been charged with
"distributing, as part of missionary activity", a New Testament and a
prayer guide not labelled with his organisation's official full name. This
was despite the fact that his church is an unregistered religious group,
which also cannot be subject to any administrative prosecution as it is not
a legal entity.
Chamyan appealed unsuccessfully on 10 April 2025 at Lazarevsky District
Court, but eventually managed to have his conviction and fine overturned at
the 4th Cassational Court in Krasnodar on 11 August 2025. (END)
More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Russia
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
For background information see Forum 18's Russia religious freedom survey
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Forum 18's compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Follow us on Bluesky @Forum18
(https://bsky.app/profile/foru
Follow us on Facebook @Forum18NewsService
(https://www.facebook.com/Foru
Follow us on Telegram @Forum18NewsService
(https://t.me/s/forum18newsser
Follow us on WhatsApp Forum 18
(https://www.whatsapp.com/chan
Follow us on X/Twitter @Forum_18 (https://x.com/forum_18)
All Forum 18 material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in
full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.
All photographs that are not Forum 18's copyright are attributed to the
copyright owner. If you reuse any photographs from Forum 18's website, you
must seek permission for any reuse from the copyright owner or abide by the
copyright terms the copyright owner has chosen.
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855.