YEVSTIFEYEV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
Doc ref: 226/18, 232/18, 236/18, 2027/18, 25224/18, 32678/18, 8156/20, 17172/20, 32416/20, 2877/21, 30564/21,... • ECHR ID: 001-230004
Document date: December 5, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 10
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 minorsâ€, 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 (МоÑковÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð›Ð“Ð‘Ð¢-Ð¸Ð½Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸Ð°Ñ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð³Ñ€ÑƒÐ¿Ð¿Ð° Стимул)
2015
Moscow
Anton
Igorevich
RYZHOV
Group 2 – Sanctions for “promotion of homosexuality among minorsâ€
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
Cherepov
v. Russia
28/07/2020
Viktor
Yevgenyevich
CHEREPOV 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