ECtHR: Judgment Klimova and Others v. Russia (nos. 33421/16, 8156/20, 32416/20, 39855/20, 10497/21, 33277/21, and 46226/21) (State action for “promoting homosexuality among minors” violates freedom of expression)
The applicants are six Russian nationals who were born on various dates between 1973 and 2000. They are the owner of a website and administrators of websites or social networking groups and communities, such as http://www.gay.ru, one of the oldest and largest LGBTI websites in Russia, and an online project “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” (Дети-404. ЛГБТ-подростки). The websites and VKontakte a social networking platform communities and groups owned or administered by the applicants sought to encourage tolerance and acceptance of LGBTI people, to give support to troubled LGBTI teenagers, to provide information on, and a forum for discussion of, LGBTI-related topics or to provide a space where LGBTI people could meet to find friends or romantic partners.
The case concerns the applicants’ convictions for an administrative offence and/or the blocking of access to their websites or webpages on social networking sites for “promoting homosexuality among minors”. Legislation introduced in Russia from 2003 to 2013 made the “promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors an offence punishable by a fine (see Bayev and Others v. Russia, applications nos. 67667/09, 44092/12 and 56717/12). The Russian courts notably found that the applicants’ publications on the Internet were harmful for children.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain that the legislative ban on promoting homosexuality among minors as applied in their specific cases breached their freedom of expression. One of the applicants, Yuliya Vladimirovna Tsvetkova (no. 39855/20), also complains that the security services collected user data from VKontakte related to her personal social networking account and to the social networking commuity administered by her. She relies on Article 8 (right to
respect for private and family life).
Violation of Article 8 in application no. 39855/20
Violation of Article 10 in applications nos. 33421/16, 8156/20, 32416/20, 10497/21, 33277/21, and 46226/21
Just satisfaction: For the details of the amounts awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses, please see the operative part the judgment
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 