The Russian Ministry of Justice has framed the liquidation of the Israeli Jewish Agency, known as Sochnut, around concerns that Russians’ personal data appeared on foreign websites, violating Russia’s personal data laws. According to reports from Kommersant, the issue centers on the agency’s handling of data and the regulatory breaches that followed. The tension between data governance and organizational status has become a focal point in Moscow, where the Justice Ministry claims that the violations are serious enough to warrant removal of Sochnut from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.
A Moscow court, specifically the Basmanny District Court, has begun reviewing the Ministry of Justice’s filing against Sochnut seeking its liquidation. The court process, as reported by Kommersant, had been postponed from August 2022 after the defense asked for more time. The delay, they explained, was intended to allow the organization to rectify the violations cited by regulators. The case reflects a broader dispute over how non-governmental organizations operating within Russia’s borders should manage personal data and adhere to local law.
Officials from the Ministry asserted that Sochnut posted Russians’ personal data on foreign platforms and incurred administrative penalties on 16 occasions in a three-year span for breaches of the personal data statute and the law governing NGOs. The department described these violations as repeated and systematic, to the extent that they met the threshold for liquidation and removal from the registry. This framing underscored a push to enforce stricter compliance and to demonstrate that persistent noncompliance would trigger drastic administrative action.
In response, Sochnut’s attorney, Andrey Grishaev, contended that the organization had taken steps to correct defects in the statute after an initial draft. Grishaev noted that he had submitted a revised statute to the Ministry of Justice on February 15, amid ongoing efforts to resolve the earlier issues. He explained that two primary shortcomings mentioned in an earlier version had been addressed in the summer of 2022, but the updated submission faced new objections rooted in provisions dating back to 2015 or 2009. Grishaev argued that the current office of the ministry no longer relied on those older provisions and that the objections no longer reflected the substantive grounds used to justify liquidation. The defense highlighted that the ministry’s basis for the liquidation case had shifted, while the expressed concerns remained unsettled.
Grishaev also remarked that the ministry’s review would take months, effectively delaying any decision on the revised statute. As a result, the defense asked for a postponement until April 1 to give the ministry time to consider the new material. The attorney painted the timeline as onerous and legally consequential, with ongoing negotiations aimed at preserving the organization’s legal status while addressing regulatory concerns. This proposed delay illustrated the procedural complexity involved when a state body seeks to dissolve an international NGO operating within its borders.
Meanwhile, ministry officials issued a separate statement in September suggesting that the response time was elongated by complaints about the ministry’s progress. They argued that the delays were not a sign of inaction but rather a reflection of the substantial work remaining to complete the elimination of violations and to bring Sochnut into full compliance. This perspective framed the case as part of a broader effort to tighten controls on data handling and NGO governance in a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape. While the court’s function is to adjudicate the matter on the presented evidence, the underlying public interest centers on privacy protections, data localization, and the proper registration of foreign-affiliate organizations within Russia.
The situation has drawn attention to how nations regulate the flow of personal information and the consequences for organizations that operate across borders. Observers note that the case touches on sensitive questions about data sovereignty, international NGO operations, and the mechanisms by which authorities enforce compliance. It also highlights the legal risks that arise when a foreign-affiliated organization is active in Russia and subject to its domestic data laws and NGO statutes, even as it navigates the complexities of international philanthropy and civil society work. The evolving narrative suggests that future judgments may hinge on the precise character of the data practices in question, the adequacy of the statute, and the ministry’s interpretation of the applicable legal standards.
For readers tracking regulatory action against NGOs and data-protection governance in Russia, this dispute offers a clear example of the interplay between administrative penalties, court procedures, and strategic legal maneuvering. The outcome will likely influence how similar organizations structure their data-handling policies, frame their governing documents, and coordinate with Russian authorities to ensure ongoing recognition and lawful operation within the country. Analysts and stakeholders will be watching closely to see whether the ministry’s position on liquidation prevails or if revisions and procedural accommodations will allow Sochnut to continue functioning under clarified regulatory terms. The case remains a developing story with significant implications for civil society, data privacy, and international cooperation in the region (attribution: Kommersant).