CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 juin 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 19 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10497/21 Yuliya Vladimirovna TSVETKOVA against Russia lodged on 2 February 2021 communicated on 29 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative offence proceedings against the applicant. She was fined for publishing several posts on social networks which had been found to amount to “promotion of homosexuality among minors”.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction of an administrative offence for “promotion of homosexuality among minors” violate her right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 67667/09 and 2 others, 20 June 2017)?   2.     Did the applicant suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 (see Bayev and Others v. Russia , cited above)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016)?