Update

During the past year, restrictions on the legal environment for civic engagement in Russia came into effect. Effective April 16, 2006, four Russian laws [The 1992 Law #3297-1 “On Closed Administrative Territories,” the 1995 Law #82-FZ “On Public Associations,” the 1996 Law#7-FZ “On Noncommercial Organizations,” and the 1994 Civil Code. In addition, several laws were nullified by the new law] were amended under a law that was enacted by the Parliament and signed by President Putin in January. The new legislation sets forth onerous and highly vague and subjective registration and reporting requirements for foreign NPOs operating in Russia (through legal entities known as “representative offices” or “branches”), including the requirement to register with the newly-created Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice (the “FRS”) by October 17, 2006. All foreign NPOs not registered by this deadline were required to stop all activity until registration was accomplished (some are still under suspension while awaiting decisions on their registration applications). While registration in and of itself is not unusual by international standards, the Russian legislation is highly vague and ambiguous, and in practice has been subject to varying interpretations by the FRS functionaries who review and approve or deny applications for registration, leading to confusion among NPOs trying to comply and corruption among some FRS functionaries, who are taking the opportunity to demand bribes from NPOs in order to approve their applications. While most foreign NPOs have managed (some at great expense) to be registered, a conspicuous few have been rejected repeatedly by the FRS for dubious reasons – virtually all of these rejected NPOs operate in the human rights sector in Chechnya, raising the concern that they are being rejected for political reasons. Further, the new annual reporting requirements for foreign NPOs operating in Russia (and Russian domestic NPOs as well) mandate that highly detailed information be provided to the FRS, including all sources of the NPO’s income (including individual donors’ names and addresses, which raises fears of retribution among those who donate to causes that the government does not favor, such as religious minorities or democratization movements), how each contribution was spent (with a prohibition on using foreign income for anything “political”, although that term is not defined and is assumed to be given very wide swath), and an exact schedule of all of the upcoming year’s meetings, events, or other activities, to which the government is entitled to send a representative (presumably without prior notice). The requirement for prior notice of all events effectively prohibits organizations from responding quickly to current events, such as by holding press conferences in response to human rights violations, since such an event will not have been included on the annual report.. . It is highly noteworthy that while the new law sets forth various grounds on which the FRS may deny a foreign NPO’s registration, one such ground is so vague as to provide virtually unfettered discretion to deny registration: registration may be denied if the “goals and objectives of the foreign [NPO]’s branch or representative office may create a threat to the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity, national unity, unique character, cultural heritage and national interests of the Russian Federation.” Absolutely no definitions or guidelines whatsoever are provided with respect to this part of the statute. As of December 31, the Federal Registration Service had granted re-registration to about 200 of the estimated 350-400 foreign NPOs currently operating in Russia. The latest controversy is similar to an earlier one that arose in response to the re-registration provision of the 1995 Law on Non-commercial Organizations. In March 2006, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment of admissibility in the case Sutyajnik v.Russia. The NPO “Sutyajnik” had sought re-registration under the 1995 law, which was eventually denied, and this case results from an appeal with regard to decisions of Russian courts denying the registration. [Sutyajnik v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. http://www.sutyajnik.ru/rus/cases/sutyajnik_v_russia/decision.html ]