CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61435/19 Neringa Dangvydė MACATĖ against Lithuania lodged on 22 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a writer and specialist in children’s literature, and is openly homosexual. In 2013 the Lithuanian University of Education published her book “Amber Heart”, a collection of original fairy tales. They were based on traditional fairy tale motifs and aimed at fostering social inclusion of various marginalised groups, including ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. Out of the six fairy tales, two depicted love between people of the same sex. In 2014 the university stopped the distribution of the book, on the grounds that it might have a negative effect on minors because of its depiction of same-sex family relationships. In 2015 it renewed the distribution, but the book was marked with a warning that it “might have a negative effect on persons below the age of fourteen”. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the university, stating that it had restricted her freedom of expression on discriminatory grounds, but her claim was dismissed. The courts held that, as provided under Lithuanian law and as understood by the majority of the Lithuanian society, a family was created by marriage of persons of different sexes, and the law considered information which promoted different concepts of marriage and family to be harmful to minors. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention, taken alone and together with Article 14, that the publication and distribution of her book was restricted because of its positive depiction of same-sex relationships. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10   §   2 (see Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania , no. 69317/14, §§   63 ‑ 65 and 70-74, 30 January 2018; Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 67667/09 and   2 others, §§ 63, 66-71 and 81-82, 20 June 2017; and, mutatis mutandis , Alekseyev v. Russia , nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, §§ 82-86, 21   October 2010)?   2.     Did the restrictions on the publication and distribution of the applicant’s book amount to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 (see, mutatis mutandis , Bayev and Others , §§ 88-91, and Alekseyev , §§ 108-09, both cited above)?