Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Armenia violated Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect activists, NGO members, journalists, and researchers from homophobic hate speech. The case arose from a 2014 newspaper article that denounced the applicants as “gay-campaign-supporting zombies” and “enemies of the Nation and the State,” calling for their social and professional isolation. These attacks followed the applicants’ criticism of homophobic remarks made by Eurovision jury members. Armenian courts dismissed the applicants’ civil claims, wrongly classifying the statements as legitimate journalistic expression. The ECtHR found that Armenia lacked an effective legal framework to address homophobic hate speech and that domestic courts had failed to properly balance the author’s freedom of expression against the applicants’ right to dignity and protection from discrimination.

---

Facts

The applicants were activists, NGO members, journalists, and researchers working in human rights, specifically in LGBT and women’s rights in Armenia.

On May 16, 2014, during a Facebook press conference held by Radio Liberty, two Armenian Eurovision jury members (sisters I.A. and A.A.) made disparaging remarks about Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst. They admitted awarding her the lowest points due to their “internal revulsion” and comparing the performer to “mentally ill people” who evoke “aversion.” The applicants and others criticized these remarks on the press conference’s Facebook page. [para. 7]

On May 17, 2014, the newspaper Iravunk published an article titled “They Serve the Interests of the International Homosexual Lobby: the Blacklist of Enemies of the Nation and the State,” written by editor-in-chief H.G. It labeled the applicants and others as “gay-campaign-supporting zombies” and “internal enemies of the Nation and the State,” urging readers to socially and professionally isolate them. The Article called for employers to refuse hiring them, public officials to fire them, and educational institutions to bar them from teaching. It also included hyperlinks to the Facebook profiles of those who had criticized the jury members, including the applicants. [paras. 8-9]

On May 31, 2014, most applicants formally requested a retraction from both the chairman of the editorial board, H.B. (who was also an MP for the ruling Republican Party), and the editor-in-chief, H.G., arguing that the article insulted their honor and dignity and contained defamatory information. In response, on June 3, 2014, H.G. published another article titled “And They Still Dare to Request a Retraction?” which reproduced the text of the applicants’ request while adding further insults, referring to applicant Anna Shahnazaryan as “a certain character” who had written “gender” on her forehead, mocking another applicant’s participation in “gay parades,” and describing the applicants as having “stinking biographies”. [paras. 10-11]

On June 16, 2014, the applicants filed civil proceedings against the newspaper and its editor-in-chief under Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation for damage to their honor and dignity. They argued that statements in both articles constituted insults, hate speech, and incitement to discrimination. The applicants requested a public apology on the newspaper’s website and 5,000,000 Armenian drams in damages, citing various constitutional provisions and Council of Europe recommendations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Between July 11 and 30, 2014, Iravunk published a series of articles targeting specific applicants individually. These articles included derogatory photos, labels such as “Conchita’s witnesses,” references to “homosexual lobbying,” and attacks on their personal backgrounds and families. One article questioned whether the applicants could even be referred to as “boys and girls,” while another asked readers if they felt nausea about “the level of freedom enjoyed by the disgusting abbreviation that is LGBT.” [para. 13]

On September 5, 2014, H.G. created a Facebook event calling supporters of “traditional values” to attend the scheduled court hearing on October 20 to support the newspaper against “gay rights lobbyists.” On the day of the hearing, approximately a dozen people demonstrated outside the court building with posters containing messages such as “Stop Anti-Armenian Propaganda,” “Gender Equals Perversion,” and “Let’s Protect the Right to Be Armenian.” On October 25, 2014, during the newspaper’s twenty-fifth anniversary, H.B. and H.G. were awarded medals and honors by the President of Armenia and the President of the National Assembly. [para. 14]

On October 30, 2014, the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding that the newspaper articles contained journalistic exaggeration and provocation rather than insults. The court determined that the statements fell within permissible boundaries of freedom of journalistic speech on matters of public interest and that the applicants, having joined a public discussion, should exhibit tolerance toward criticism. The court characterized the articles as part of an open debate about homosexuality and Christian values rather than personal attacks. [para. 16]

The applicants appealed on November 28, 2014, arguing that the District Court had failed to examine all evidence, particularly the subsequent articles demonstrating the defendants’ intention to insult them. They emphasized that the court had not addressed their arguments about incitement to discrimination and hatred. On March 2, 2015, Iravunk published yet another article attacking Mr. Hovsepyan titled “Adventures of the Armenian Gay Rights Lobbyists in Istanbul,” suggesting that the applicants’ activities should be investigated by national security authorities. [para. 18]

On March 5, 2015, the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal, upholding the District Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal ruled that the impugned statements were value judgments not susceptible to proof and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the defendant intended to tarnish their honor or dignity. Regarding the discrimination claims, the court found these arguments fell outside the scope of the applicants’ honor and dignity claim, noting they had not provided evidence of actual discrimination in employment or other areas based on their advocacy. [paras. 22-24]

On March 25, 2015, H.B. gave a speech in Parliament accusing George Soros and his Open Society Foundation of sponsoring NGOs like PINK Armenia to persecute the newspaper and attack freedom of speech in Armenia. The applicants filed an appeal on points of law on April 7, 2015, which the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible on April 29, 2015. Following this final decision, the newspaper reportedly continued to publish similar articles targeting the applicants. [para. 25]

---

Decision Overview

The Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously delivered the decision. The primary issue was whether Armenia violated Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) by failing to provide adequate legal protection to the applicants against homophobic hate speech.

The Applicants contended that the newspaper’s May 17, 2014 article constituted unlawful interference with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, while the domestic courts’ failure to censure the newspaper or its editor-in-chief breached the State’s positive obligation to protect them. As human rights defenders and activists supporting or belonging to the LGBT community, they contended that the article deprived them of their dignity, damaged their honor and reputation, and detrimentally impacted their ability to live their lives. They claimed the State failed to protect them from discriminatory homophobic statements and provide redress, including by not having effective legislation prohibiting discrimination and incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation, which amounted to a breach of Article 14. The applicants emphasized that the article went beyond mere insult to constitute hate speech that denied them the ability to participate freely in society and assert their personal identity, including sexual orientation. They argued the State had positive obligations under Articles 8 and 14 to protect individuals from hate speech and discrimination by private actors.

The Applicants further contended that the domestic courts failed to give due consideration to essential issues raised in their civil claim, particularly regarding hate speech and discrimination. Despite the discriminatory and homophobic language used, including insults and incitement to discrimination, the courts ignored their claims and failed to acknowledge the author’s discriminatory motives. They argued that such hate speech was not protected under Article 10 and constituted an abuse of rights under Article 17, yet the courts extended Article 10 protection to hate speech. The applicants also claimed the courts failed to properly balance their Article 8 rights against the author’s Article 10 rights by not identifying the public interest, assessing the impact on their private lives, considering the permanent nature of internet publication, recognizing discrimination based on LGBT association, or acknowledging that the newspaper undermined principles of equality. As evidence of negative impact, they cited specific consequences they suffered, including threatening messages, social isolation, employment termination, family pressure, and online abuse.

The Government argued that Article 17 of the Convention (prohibition of abuse of rights) was not applicable to the case, as what was required was a fair balance between two competing Convention rights: the applicants’ right to respect for private life under Article 8 and the article author’s freedom of expression under Article 10. They contended that domestic courts had properly based their decisions on established case law, recognizing that ideas that offend, shock or disturb are protected under Article 10. According to the Government, the article in question contained the author’s opinion about “gay rights lobbyists” who were allegedly trying to “aggressively establish their rules” in Armenia, with the intention to intimidate opponents of what the author considered “perversion.” They maintained that the courts had delivered duly reasoned judgments within their margin of appreciation, concluding that there had been no violation of the applicants’ rights. The Government emphasized that the courts had addressed the applicants’ complaint regarding their honor and dignity in detail, determining that the content did not constitute an “insult” as defined in law.

The Government further disputed the applicants’ claim that Armenian law lacked provisions for addressing discrimination and hate speech. They cited Article 14.1 of the Constitution, which prohibited discrimination, arguing that it was directly applicable under Article 3 of the Constitution, making special legislative mechanisms unnecessary. They pointed to Article 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed for the application of legal analogy in civil proceedings. The Government emphasized that domestic courts had repeatedly noted the applicants’ failure to prove they had been subjected to discrimination, arguing that while alleging violations of Article 14, the applicants had failed to demonstrate how their rights had been breached and had merely cited relevant provisions. They contended that the applicants’ civil claim had raised only issues of insult and damage to honor and dignity (Article 8 concerns), not discrimination (Article 14 concerns). The Government noted that the Civil Court of Appeal had dismissed discrimination claims as unsubstantiated, as the applicants had failed to produce evidence of being refused jobs, dismissed, or subjected to other discriminatory acts. They argued that the applicants could have properly raised discrimination issues through direct application of the Constitution but failed to do so, thereby failing to exhaust domestic remedies. Alternatively, the Government claimed that if the legal framework was ineffective as alleged, the applicants should have applied to the Court within six months rather than pursuing an ineffective remedy.

The three third-party interveners provided complementary perspectives on hate speech protections under international human rights law. ARTICLE 19 outlined a three-tier classification of hate speech: (1) severe forms requiring prohibition through criminal, civil, and administrative measures; (2) other forms states might prohibit, such as discriminatory threats or harassment; and (3) lawful but concerning speech meriting state response while being protected from restriction. They emphasized that determining whether speech reaches the threshold of incitement requires examining six factors: context, speaker’s position/influence, intent, content/wording, extent/magnitude of expression, and likelihood/imminence of harm.

The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University urged the Court to require states to provide effective protection against homophobic and transphobic hate speech through adequate legal frameworks, questioning whether such frameworks should include criminal or civil remedies, and emphasizing the need to protect human rights defenders promoting LGBTIQ+ rights. ILGA-Europe and TGEU detailed how many Contracting States had implemented criminal and/or civil protections against homophobic speech, providing specific examples from numerous European countries, while highlighting that Armenian legislation afforded no protection against homophobic or transphobic expressions, which, combined with hostile social attitudes, prevented LGBT people from seeking redress and contributed to a deteriorating situation for the LGBT community in Armenia.

The Court began its assessment by examining whether Armenia had an effective legal system to protect citizens from homophobic hate speech under Article 8 of the Convention. While the Government argued that Article 14.1 of the Armenian Constitution provided adequate protection through its non-discrimination principles, the Court observed that this constitutional provision had not been incorporated into criminal or civil law, nor into any specific anti-discrimination legislation at the relevant time. The Government failed to demonstrate with concrete examples or case law how this constitutional provision could be directly applied by domestic courts in practice, undermining their argument that it provided effective protection. [paras. 62-63]

The Court determined that Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code, which provided protection from “insult” defined as offensive speech tarnishing one’s honor, dignity or business reputation, was the only remedy available to the applicants. Although not explicitly designed to address hate speech, this provision required courts to balance competing interests and examine authors’ intentions when assessing statements. In theory, this balancing could include consideration of the potentially discriminatory and hateful nature of an author’s statements and motives. The redress available under this provision included public apology, publication of court judgments, and non-pecuniary damages. The Court acknowledged this mechanism could theoretically provide protection against homophobic hate speech, but questioned its practical effectiveness given the Government’s failure to provide supporting case law examples and considering how the applicants’ specific case was handled. [para. 64]

In analyzing the domestic courts’ handling of the case, the Court found they failed to properly assess the newspaper article according to established case law principles. The Court noted that the author expressly incited public intolerance and harmful discriminatory acts against the applicants because of their support for the LGBT community, including calls for discrimination in their personal and professional lives. The Court questioned whether such speech could even enjoy Article 10 protection given Article 17’s prohibition on abuse of rights, though it did not definitively rule on this question. [paras. 65-66]

The domestic courts erroneously gave full weight to the author’s freedom of expression while giving little to no importance to the effect of his statements on the applicants’ private life. The courts emphasized the author’s status as a press representative reporting on public interest matters, but the Court reiterated that Article 10 protection for journalists is conditional on them acting in good faith to provide accurate information according to responsible journalism principles (citing Bédat v. Switzerland and Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway). The Court stressed that freedom of expression carries “duties and responsibilities” that are particularly applicable to the press, especially when attacking private individuals’ reputations. [paras. 67-68]

The Court condemned the article’s content, noting the author expressed anger toward the applicants for their LGBT activism, using stigmatizing labels such as “homosexual rights lobbyists” and “gay-campaign-supporting zombies,” branding them as “internal enemies of the Nation and the State,” and advocating for their blacklisting and subjection to specific discriminatory acts. The author incited intolerance, hostility, and discrimination against LGBT persons and their supporters with the clear intention of intimidating the applicants into abandoning their public support for the LGBT community (comparing with Identoba and Others, App. No. 73235/12 (2015), Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia, App. Nos. 73204/13 and 74959/13 (2021), and Oganezova v. Armenia, App. Nos. 71367/12 and 72961/12 (2022). [para. 68]

The Court emphatically rejected the article as an example of responsible journalism, condemning it as propaganda promoting hatred, hostility, and discrimination against the LGBT community—a particularly vulnerable minority that was one of the main targets of widespread hostility and hate-motivated violence in Armenia at that time (referencing Oganezova and ECRI reports). The domestic courts failed to recognize the author’s hostile tone and intentions and the impact on the applicant’s Article 8 rights, instead downplaying his expressions as legitimate “criticism” in a public interest debate. This failure to protect the applicants from speech advocating intolerance and harmful acts constituted a breach of Article 8. [para. 69]

Although the applicants specifically argued the article incited hatred and discrimination based on their perceived sexual orientation, the District Court acknowledged but completely failed to address this issue. The Court of Appeal’s discrimination analysis was inadequately limited to whether the applicants had experienced specific discriminatory acts like employment refusal or dismissal, without examining whether the speech itself was bias-motivated with discriminatory overtones or considering the author’s discriminatory motives. By failing to address the discriminatory nature of the impugned statements, the domestic courts failed to fulfill their positive obligation to respond adequately to the applicants’ alleged discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation and association with the LGBT community, as required under Article 14 (comparing with Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 12567/13 (2021), Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, App. No. 29335/13 (2021), and Nepomnyashchiy and Others v. Russia, App. Nos. 39954/09 and 3465/17 (2023)). [para. 70]

The Court concluded that Armenian courts failed to perform the required balancing exercise according to established criteria, and the civil remedy’s practical application failed to protect against hate speech and discrimination. The Court proceeded to address the Government’s procedural objections regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month time limit. It rejected the Government’s argument that if no effective legal framework existed in Armenia, the applicants should not have pursued an ineffective civil remedy before turning to the Court. The Court stated that mere doubts about a remedy’s effectiveness don’t absolve applicants from trying it, and it serves applicants’ interests to give domestic courts an opportunity to develop rights through interpretation. Since the civil remedy appeared theoretically capable of providing protection, and the applicants had explicitly raised hate speech and discrimination issues in their claim with references to the Constitution, Convention articles, and relevant recommendations, the Court found they had properly exhausted domestic remedies. [paras. 71, 73-75]

In conclusion, the Court unanimously found violations of Article 8 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, determining that Armenia had failed to meet its positive obligations to protect the applicants from homophobic hate speech and discrimination. [para. 76]

---