CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sADDDE81A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB217F556 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } Published on 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 226/18 Aleksey Borisovich YEVSTIFEYEV against Russia and 16 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern various alleged violations of the rights of LGBTI people, such as sanctions for “promotion of homosexuality among minors”, alleged failure to protect against homophobic speech, disruptions of LGBTI events, or disclosure of information about sexual orientation and other personal data on social networks. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Group   1: Did the domestic authorities comply with their obligation under Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, to respond adequately to discriminatory statements and to secure respect for the applicants’ “private life” (see Nepomnyashchiy and Others v. Russia , nos. 39954/09 and 3465/17, 30 May 2023, and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria , no. 29335/13,16 February 2021)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Group 2: 1.     Did the applicants’ convictions of an administrative offence or the blocking of their Internet sites/web pages on social networking sites for “promotion of homosexuality among minors” violate their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos.   67667/09 and 2 others, 20 June 2017)? 2.     In application no. 33277/21, 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)? 3.     In application no. 46226/21, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Engels v. Russia , no. 61919/16, §§ 41-44, 23 June 2020)?   Group 3: 1.     Did the State comply with its duty to take positive measures to protect the effective exercise by the applicants of their right to freedom of expression against interference by private persons, as required by Article 10 (see, for examples of positive obligations under Article 10, Özgür Gündem v.   Turkey , no. 23144/93, §§   42-46, ECHR 2000 ‑ III , and Khadija Ismayilova v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§ 158-66, 10 January 2019), taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? 2.     As regards applications nos. 32678/18 and 17172/20, was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, as a result of the authorities’ failure to protect the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to investigate the actions of private individuals that had led to the interruption of the event organised by the applicant association (see Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania , no.   19237/16, §§ 138-47, 1   June 2021)? 3.     As regards the second and third applicants in application no. 32678/18, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of harassment by private individuals motivated by hatred against homosexuals (see Association ACCEPT and Others, cited above, §§ 96-128)? 4.     As regards application no. 17172/20, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and   11 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, as a result of the interruption of the applicants’ meeting by the police (see, mutatis mutandis , Krupko and Others v. Russia , no. 26587/07, §§   47-57, 26 June 2014)? 5.     Did the applicants in applications nos. 32678/18, 17172/20 and   37556/22 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 6.     As regards application no. 30564/21, did the suspension of the applicant’s activities for the failure to respect COVID-related restrictions disclose a violation of Article   10   of the Convention?   Group 4: Having regard to the publication of the applicants’ personal data on social networks – in particular information about their sexual orientation, together with information about their same-sex marriage, personal address or photograph – did the domestic authorities discharge their positive obligation under Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, to ensure effective respect for the applicants’ right to respect for private life in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.   40660/08 and 60641/08, §§   95-113, ECHR 2012)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Group 5 : 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or interference with their right to respect for their private lives, in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention, during the police raid of 5   December 2020? Was the investigation into the applicants’ allegations of physical and verbal abuse effective (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v.   Georgia , no.   7224/11, 8   October 2020)? 2.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14? 3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, as a result of the disruption of the applicants’ meeting by the police (see, mutatis mutandis , Krupko and Others, cited above)? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence/ Incorporation Represented by   Group 1 – Alleged failure to protect against homophobic speech   1. 226/18 Yevstifeyev v. Russia 04/12/2017 Aleksey Borisovich YEVSTIFEYEV 1991 St Petersburg   Kseniya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 2. 232/18 Semenov v. Russia 04/12/2017 Aleksandr Andreyevich SEMENOV 1988 St Petersburg   Kseniya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 3. 236/18 Miniakhmetov v. Russia 04/12/2017 Ruslan Alfatovich MINIAKHMETOV 1986 St Petersburg   Kseniya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 4. 2027/18 Grachev v. Russia 04/12/2017 Daniil Sergeyevich GRACHEV 1993 St Petersburg   Kseniya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 5. 2877/21 Babintseva v. Russia 17/12/2020 Yuliya Viktorovna BABINTSEVA 1985 Perm Region   Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV 6. 22327/22 Petrov and Stimul v. Russia 12/04/2022 Andrey Aleksandrovich PETROV 1984 Moscow   Moscow LGBT Initiative Group Stimul (Московская ЛГБТ-инициативная группа Стимул) 2015 Moscow   Anton Igorevich RYZHOV   Group 2 – Sanctions for “promotion of homosexuality among minors”   7. 25224/18 Romanova v. Russia 23/05/2018 Yevdokiya Pavlovna ROMANOVA 1990 Samara   Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV 8. 8156/20 Yedemskiy v. Russia 01/02/2020 Mikhail Anatolyevich YEDEMSKIY 1973 Moscow   Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV 9. 32416/20 V.C. v. Russia 28/07/2020 V.C. 1984 Naberezhnye Chelny   Aleksandr Nikolayevich BELIK 10. 33277/21 Gorshkova v. Russia 14/06/2021 Vera Alekseyevna GORSHKOVA 2000 Yekaterinburg   Anna Vitalyevna PLYUSNINA 11. 46226/21 Sergeyev v. Russia 07/09/2021 Aleksey Vladimirovich SERGEYEV 1979 St Petersburg   Anton Igorevich RYZHOV   Group 3 – Alleged failure to take positive measures of protection against disruptions of LGBTI events by private individuals   12. 32678/18 Side by Side International Film Festival and Others v. Russia 29/06/2018 Side by Side International Film Festival (OOO Mezhdunarodnyy Kinofestival Bok o Bok) 2007 St Petersburg Andrey Aleksandrovich PETROV 1984 Omsk Gulnara Yuryevna SULTANOVA 1975 St Petersburg   Anton Igorevich RYZHOV 13. 17172/20 Side by Side International Film Festival v. Russia 24/03/2020 Side by Side International Film Festival (OOO Mezhdunarodnyy Kinofestival Bok o Bok) 2007 St Petersburg   Galina Aleksandrovna IBRYANOVA   14. 30564/21 Side by Side International Film Festival v. Russia 24/05/2021 Side by Side International Film Festival (OOO Mezhdunarodnyy Kinofestival Bok o Bok) 2007 St Petersburg   Dmitriy Gennadyevich BARTENEV and Galina Aleksandrovna IBRYANOVA     Group 4 –Disclosure of personal data on social networks   15. 8825/22 Bazhenov and Semkin v. Russia 03/02/2022 Yevgeniy Igorevich BAZHENOV 1985 Moscow Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SEMKIN 1984 Moscow   Anton Igorevich RYZHOV 16. 19130/22 Lapov v. Russia 01/04/2022 Artem Yevgenyevich LAPOV 1988 Moscow   Anton Igorevich RYZHOV   Group 5 - Disruption of an LGBTI event by the police   17. 31712/21 Derrek and Others v. Russia 28/05/2021 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich DERREK 1998 Yaroslavl Aleksey Nikolayevich NAZAROV 1978 St Petersburg Aleksey Vladimirovich SERGEYEV 1979 St Petersburg Nikolay Anatolyevich SHCHERBAKOV 1996 Moscow Yaroslav Nikolayevich SIROTKIN 1991 Yaroslavl Alena Andreyevna YEROKH 1998 Yaroslavl Anton Igorevich RYZHOV