Case Summary and Outcome

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights determined that Lithuania violated Article 10 of the Convention by suspending distribution and applying a warning label to Amber Heart, a children’s book depicting same-sex relationships. The Court held that the label—indicating the book might harm children under 14—was based on prejudice rather than any objective evidence of harm, and that it disproportionately restricted both the author’s freedom of expression and children’s access to inclusive information. The judgment stressed that promoting respect for same-sex relationships cannot be framed as harmful and that such state-imposed labels contribute to stigma and a chilling effect on other authors. The Court concluded that the measures did not pursue a legitimate aim under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as protecting morals cannot justify discrimination against LGBTQI+ content.

Facts

In December 2012, Neringa Dangvydė Macatė, an openly homosexual author, sought to publish her children’s book Amber Heart, which contained six fairy tales promoting diversity, inclusion, and tolerance. Two of the stories featured same-sex relationships: one between a tailor and a king’s son, and the other between a shoemaker’s daughter and a princess. The book was aimed at children aged 9–10 and addressed broader issues such as bullying, stigmatization, intellectual disability, ethnic diversity, divorce, and emigration.

The Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, a public institution, submitted a funding request to the Ministry of Culture to support the book’s publication. The book was reviewed by an educator and a children’s author, who found it suitable for primary school children and praised its efforts to promote empathy and acceptance of marginalized groups. In May 2013, the University signed a contract with the Ministry, which agreed to partially fund the publication. The University committed to distributing 140 copies to public libraries.

On March 1, 2014, the national newspaper Lietuvos rytas published an article titled “Fairy tales about non-traditional love – in children’s backpacks.” The piece described the two stories featuring same-sex couples and included an interview with the author, who discussed her experience working with children who had suffered bullying and her aim of promoting respect for all types of families. The article also quoted two members of the Lithuanian Parents’ Forum, who strongly criticized the book’s content.

Following the article, on March 3, 2014, the Government Registry received a complaint from a member of the public alleging that the book “encouraged perversions.” The Ministry of Culture forwarded the matter to the Inspectorate of Journalistic Ethics and requested an assessment of whether the book was harmful to minors. On March 20, eight members of Parliament wrote to the University rector, citing concerns from the Lithuanian Parents’ Forum and other family organizations about the book’s depiction of same-sex marriage.

On March 27, the rector suspended the distribution of all remaining and unsold copies of the book. On April 8, 2014, the Inspectorate issued a report concluding that the book violated Article 16 of the Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. It found that the stories encouraged minors to adopt or change behavior, preferences, or attitudes, portraying same-sex marriage as acceptable. The report deemed this manipulative and harmful to children under 14.

The Ministry of Culture forwarded the Inspectorate’s conclusion to the University, requesting that it implement the recommended measures. In May 2014, the University informed the eight MPs that the fairy tales in question did not align with its policy on children’s education. That same month, the Lithuanian Human Rights Centre published an article defending the book. The author emphasized that the book featured eight heterosexual relationships alongside two same-sex ones and denied claims that it promoted any specific family model. The article also quoted a University representative who described the book as “primitive and biased propaganda of homosexuality” and expressed regret over its publication.

In July 2014, the author lodged a complaint before the administrative courts, seeking to annul the Inspectorate’s findings and the Ministry’s instruction to the University. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court refused to examine the case. Meanwhile, in October 2014, the University contacted 66 public libraries and instructed them to affix warning labels on the book, indicating it contained content potentially harmful to children under 14. Despite this, the book remained available without restriction at Lithuania’s national library and was still listed as suitable for children aged 5–10.

Between May and November 2014, the book was made available free of charge on the website of the Lithuanian Human Rights Centre. In December 2014, a second edition was published, bearing a rainbow flag sticker but no warning label. No official action was taken against this second edition.

On March 25, 2015, the University rector ordered the publishing house to resume the book’s distribution, this time with a warning label for children under 14. At the time, failure to follow labeling and distribution rules for material deemed harmful to minors was punishable by a warning or fine.

First set of proceedings

In October 2014, the author also filed a civil claim against the University, challenging the suspension of the book’s distribution. The University argued that the decision was not discriminatory, but based on the Inspectorate’s findings and the book’s alleged violation of the Minors Protection Act. On April 16, 2015, the Vilnius District Court dismissed the claim. It held that the University had no obligation to distribute the book in any particular way, and that in the absence of such an obligation, its decisions could not amount to discrimination.

On March 2, 2016, the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that the University’s actions were not motivated by discriminatory considerations but were based on objective factors; specifically, compliance with the Minors Protection Act and the instructions of the Ministry of Culture and the Inspectorate.

However, on December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings and remitted the case for re-examination. It criticized the lower courts for failing to assess whether the book genuinely promoted a concept of marriage and family that conflicted with national law or merely encouraged tolerance of sexual diversity. The Court held that the author’s claims of discrimination had been inadequately addressed and that the burden of proof had been wrongly placed on her. It emphasized the need to apply European Court of Human Rights standards, which require particularly weighty justification for any differences in treatment based on sexual orientation.

Second set of proceedings

In the retrial, the Vilnius District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on March 2, 2018. The court found that the University had fulfilled its contractual obligations by publishing the book and distributing the agreed number of copies to libraries. It emphasized the need to strike a balance between the author’s freedom of expression and the protection of minors, noting that parents’ rights and responsibilities also had to be respected. The court concluded that the measures taken did not disproportionately interfere with the author’s rights, as the book was neither banned nor withdrawn from circulation.

On February 19, 2019, the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It rejected the applicant’s claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, asserting that the University’s objection was related not to the depiction of same-sex relationships, but to the manner in which physical intimacy was presented. It cited scenes in one story that it found to be overly explicit for the book’s target age group.

The court noted that the University had cooperated with the author and had only suggested affixing a warning label. It stressed that the University was held to high ethical standards and had acted reasonably in suspending distribution while the issue was clarified. The court also accepted the Inspectorate’s assessment that the book was harmful to minors and found the psychologist’s expert opinion submitted by the applicant unconvincing. It upheld the view that labeling the book with an “N-14” warning was a proportionate measure aimed at protecting children, consistent with the Constitution’s provisions on the rights of parents and children.

The judgment further stated that the fairy tale genre should not include detailed references to physical intimacy, especially when aimed at young children. Therefore, the restriction was not based on the depiction of same-sex couples per se, but on what the court deemed inappropriate content for the age group.

The applicant appealed on points of law, reiterating that the restrictions were discriminatory and disproportionate. She argued that the lower courts had mischaracterized the content and intent of the book, and that the decision failed to consider the work as a whole.

On May 24, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to examine the appeal, ruling that it did not raise any significant legal questions.

Decision Overview

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered a unanimous judgment finding a violation of Article 10, but five judges issued a partially dissenting opinion arguing the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 should have been considered separately. The main issue before the Court was whether the labelling and restricting of  distribution of a children’s fairytail book addressing same-sex marriage violated the author’s freedom of expression under Article 10 and was discriminatory under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The applicant, an openly homosexual children’s author, challenged the suspension and labeling of her book Amber Heart, alleging that these measures violated her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and were rooted in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. She argued that the book, which portrayed both same-sex and different-sex relationships in a respectful and age-appropriate way, was intended to promote tolerance and inclusion among children. The decision to suspend its distribution, she maintained, stemmed from political and ideological pressure rather than any legitimate concern for child welfare. She contended that the authorities’ application of the Minors Protection Act was discriminatory and arbitrary, targeting positive representations of same-sex relationships while similar portrayals involving different-sex couples were never subject to censorship. Labeling the book as harmful and suspending its distribution, the applicant claimed, stigmatized same-sex relationships, distorted the book’s message, and curtailed public discourse on LGBTI issues in Lithuania contrary to the democratic principles of pluralism, equality, and non-discrimination.

The Government argued that the case concerned a narrow and legitimate question: the appropriate minimum age for children to access the book. They claimed a wide margin of appreciation in regulating access based on age and emphasized that Amber Heart had not been banned—it remained available in public libraries, online, and was later reissued. The warning label, they argued, was merely advisory. They also noted that the suspension of distribution was a decision taken by the University, not directly mandated by the State. The Government asserted that the book’s depiction of same-sex relationships was problematic only in how intimacy was expressed—allegedly departing from traditional fairy tale norms—and not because of the characters’ sexual orientation. They highlighted a 2019 ruling by the Constitutional Court affirming that the concept of family is gender-neutral, and acknowledged that some earlier proceedings had reflected discriminatory reasoning, but maintained that the final domestic decisions were objective, expert-informed, and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting children. Broader social and legal developments in Lithuania, they argued, showed increasing inclusion and respect for LGBTI rights, and the provision in question had not been used to restrict LGBTI-related content since 2014.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the suspension of the book from commercial distribution and the imposition of warning labels constituted an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10. While the Government downplayed the impact of these measures, the Court reiterated that even minimal sanctions can amount to interference. It emphasized that recalling the book from bookstores reduced its accessibility, and that the warning labels—though formally advisory—were likely to dissuade parents from allowing children, especially those aged 9–10, to read it. In the Court’s view, these labels effectively equated the book’s content with harmful material and contributed to existing stigma against LGBTI content in Lithuania. Furthermore, the Court found that labeling the book as harmful could undermine the applicant’s professional reputation and discourage other authors from publishing inclusive literature, creating a chilling effect.

While the legality of the interference—based on section 4(2) (16) of the Minors Protection Act—was not contested, the Court determined that the measures did not pursue a legitimate aim under Article 10(2). It reiterated that legislative bans on “promotion of homosexuality or non-traditional sexual relations” among minors do not serve to protect health, morals, or the rights of others, and instead reinforce prejudice and encourage homophobia—an assessment fully endorsed by the Grand Chamber.

The Court noted that this was its first opportunity to examine restrictions on children’s literature that portrayed same-sex relationships in a language and style accessible to young readers. Given the novel context, it undertook a detailed assessment of whether the aim of such restrictions could be legitimate. It recalled that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting them, and that education must be delivered in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner. The Court has consistently rejected policies rooted in bias against LGBTI persons, holding that differences based solely on sexual orientation require particularly convincing and weighty justifications. It also reaffirmed that there is no evidence that exposure to same-sex relationships harms children and that access to such information contributes positively to diversity and social cohesion.

Various international bodies—including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, the European Parliament, and the UN Independent Expert on SOGI—have condemned laws that restrict access to LGBTI-related content for children, emphasizing the harm caused by the absence of such information. The Court observed that most Council of Europe member states promote diversity and explicitly include LGBTI content in educational curricula. Only one member state maintains laws restricting such access, prompting infringement proceedings by the European Commission.

In response to the Government’s argument that portraying same-sex couples should not lead to “belittling” of heterosexual families, the Court underlined that mutual respect between individuals of different sexual orientations is integral to the Convention. It found no indication that the applicant’s book had such an effect, concluding instead that portraying committed same-sex relationships as equal to different-sex relationships promotes inclusivity and respect. The Court reaffirmed that restrictions based solely on sexual orientation are incompatible with the values of pluralism and equality.

The Court also stressed the broader societal harm caused by such measures. Restrictions that treat different-sex families as more acceptable than same-sex families perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Even when narrowly applied, such measures send a message that some relationships are less valid than others—contrary to democratic values.

Accordingly, the Court found that the measures against Amber Heart did not pursue a legitimate aim and violated Article 10 of the Convention.

The applicant also invoked Article 14, arguing that she had been discriminated against in the exercise of her freedom of expression. The Court held that the discriminatory nature of the interference had been sufficiently addressed under Article 10. It noted that the complaint under Article 14, focused on the content of the expression rather than the author’s identity, was only developed at the oral hearing. As such, it left the admissibility and merits of that argument to be examined in a future case.

The Court awarded the applicant’s heir €12,000 in non-pecuniary damages.