Case Summary and Outcome

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Russia violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) in six joined applications and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) in one, in a case concerning the prosecution and censorship of LGBTI-supportive online platforms under laws banning the “promotion of homosexuality among minors.” The applicants, including activists and website administrators,  published supportive, educational, and non-sexual content aimed at LGBTI teenagers and the broader public. The Court found that the domestic authorities’ actions, ranging from fines and criminal charges to content bans, were based solely on sexual orientation considerations, lacked a clear legal basis, and failed to meet the requirements of being “prescribed by law” or “necessary in a democratic society.” Notably, the ECtHR ruled that administrators could not be held liable for user-generated content without predictable legal standards and emphasized that depicting same-sex relationships as equivalent to different-sex ones promotes equality and respect, not harm. The Court also condemned the intrusive data collection by security services of one applicant as a violation of Article 8, due to its chilling effect and lack of adequate safeguards.

---

Facts

The case concerns six applications. Considering that all six applications had a similar subject matter, the ECtHR examined them jointly in a single judgment.

First Application: Klimova

The first application concerned Yelena Aleksandrovna Klimova, a journalist who founded an online support project titled “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” for LGBTI adolescents in Russia. The name referenced the internet error message “Error 404 – Page not found,” symbolizing the invisibility of LGBTI teenagers in Russia’s intolerant environment. Klimova administered both a dedicated website and a community on the VKontakte (VK) social network site where teenagers could discuss LGBTI issues and support each other. The community had strict rules prohibiting discussions of sexual behavior, dating advertisements, homophobic statements, foul language, and calls for violence. 

On November 18, 2014, the Russian telecoms regulator (Roskomnadzor) charged Klimova with an administrative offense for “promoting homosexuality among minors” under Article 6.21 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The charges stemmed from over 130 complaints about content on the VK community page (such as letters from LGBTI teenagers describing their experiences of self-identification, coming out, romantic relationships, and users’ comments providing support to LGBTI teenagers struggling with family rejection or religious conflicts). 

Competing expert opinions were presented during the administrative proceedings. A psychologist commissioned by the Young Guard (youth wing of the pro-government party) concluded that while the community aimed to help prevent suicide among LGBTI teenagers, it contained elements promoting homosexuality by presenting it as normal and creating a “distorted image of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent.” In contrast, multiple expert reports filed by Klimova from psychiatrists and psychologists found that the material contained no promotion of homosexuality or claims that non-traditional relationships were superior to traditional ones, but rather provided psychological support to teenagers struggling with their sexual orientation and identity.

On August 3, 2015, the Justice of the Peace of the 5th Court Circuit of the Dzerzhinskiy District of Novyy Tagil found Klimova guilty of “public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors” and fined her 50,000 Russian rubles (approximately 845 USD). This court determined that the material gave a positive image of non-traditional sexual relationships, could evoke in children the idea that being gay was good, and was aimed at creating a non-traditional sexual orientation in minors. Klimova’s appeal argued that the court failed to distinguish between providing information and the promotion of homosexuality. The Dzerzhinskiy District Court upheld the conviction on November 30, 2015, stating that simply giving information about homosexuality could contain elements of “promotion.” 

In parallel legal proceedings, on May 7, 2014, the Barnaul prosecutor applied for a ban on the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” webpage and four unrelated VK webpages. Without separately examining each webpage’s contents, the Tsentralnyy District Court of Barnaul banned all five webpages on August 7, 2015, finding they contained sexual content and were harmful to children’s sexual identity and development. Klimova was not informed about these proceedings and learned about the decision only after the webpage was blocked. Despite her appeals and submissions of expert reports, the Altay Regional Court upheld the ban on January 13, 2016, claiming the case file contained a screenshot from the community webpage showing promotion of homosexuality among minors, though it provided no further details. Similarly, in separate proceedings, the contents of the “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” website were banned from dissemination in Russia on April 13, 2016. Both the VK community and website remain inaccessible in Russia. 

Second Application: Yedemskiy

In the second application, the case involved Mikhail Anatolyevich Yedemskiy, who founded and owned www.gay.ru, one of Russia’s oldest and largest LGBTI-themed websites, established in 1997. The website attracted over 160,000,000 unique visitors with up to 40,000 daily views and featured various sections including “Society,” “Art,” “People,” “Science,” and “Lifestyle.” It published news, comments, and reviews on political, social, and cultural life. The website also covered news from the LGBTI community and information about the gay rights movement. Despite being clearly marked with an “18+” content rating as required by domestic law, the website became the subject of legal proceedings. 

On October 16, 2017, the Khakassiya prosecutor applied to ban the contents of www.gay.ru from dissemination in Russia, claiming it promoted homosexuality among minors. The prosecutor argued that the website contained “information about the possibility of getting involved in same-sex relationships” that could arouse interest in children, create a distorted image of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent, and present a risk to minors’ health. [para. 34] The prosecutor filed only two screenshots featuring news headlines about an LGBTI film festival and a review of frequently discussed topics. On November 15, 2017, the Altayskiy District Court of Khakassiya banned the entire website’s contents without providing specific reasoning about what information it considered problematic. 

Yedemskiy was not informed about the hearing and only learned about the decision on March 29, 2018, after the website had been blocked. In his appeal, he argued that he had not been notified about the proceedings, that no expert reports or evidence showing promotion of homosexuality were examined, and that banning the entire website was disproportionate under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic rejected his appeal on July 19, 2018, claiming the information was “not neutral” and demonstrated contempt for traditional relationships, promoted a homosexual lifestyle, and aimed to arouse interest in same-sex relationships. The court stated that an expert report was unnecessary as the promotional nature of the content was “obvious” and dismissed Yedemskiy’s argument about the “18+” age restriction. His subsequent cassation appeals were unsuccessful, and the website remains inaccessible in Russia. 

Third Application: VC

In the third application, the case involved an applicant identified as V.C., who created two groups on the social network. In 2008, he created “Gay Chelny,” a public group open to all users where members could publish their own content, including dating advertisements. According to V.C., he stopped being the administrator of this group in 2010, though his contact details remained in the “Contacts” section. In 2009, he created a second group called “Gay Chelny RGC”—a closed group that required membership approval. V.C. stated that as administrator, he only accepted membership applications from individuals over 18 years old and regularly moderated the group to remove insulting or pornographic content. The purpose of both groups was to provide platforms where gay people could meet and interact with each other.

On August 15, 2019, the Naberezhnye Chelny prosecutor charged V.C. with an administrative offense under Article 6.21 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for “promoting homosexuality among minors.” The prosecutor claimed both group webpages contained material promoting homosexuality among minors, specifically citing that the “Gay Chelny” webpage featured “hookup” advertisements from or addressed to young men between fifteen and twenty-two years old, as well as photographs and images of genitalia and people in non-traditional sexual relationships. On September 30, 2019, the Justice of the Peace found V.C. guilty and fined him 50,000 Russian rubles (approximately 797 USD). The court determined that “Gay Chelny” had 291 members, eleven under eighteen years old, while “Gay Chelny RGC” had 279 members, nine under eighteen. The Justice of the Peace highlighted specific posts—including one asking about opinions on opening an LGBT-themed club in the city and another calling to “stop homophobia”—ruling that these publications undermined traditional values and promoted the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships. 

V.C. appealed the decision, complaining that the Justice of the Peace rejected his request for an expert report on whether the content actually promoted homosexuality among minors. He argued that he was not an administrator of “Gay Chelny” since 2010, that “Gay Chelny RGC” was a closed group not intended for children, and that he had no technical means to verify users’ ages if they provided false information. He contended that the court did not specify what information constituted promotion of homosexuality, nor verify the actual ages of group members, and wrongly held him liable for user-generated content that he could not always moderate immediately. Despite these arguments, the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court upheld the conviction on October 30, 2019, finding it “lawful, well-reasoned and justified.” 

Fourth Application: Tsvetkova

The fourth application concerned Yuliya Vladimirovna Tsvetkova,  an LGBTI and women’s rights activist who maintained a personal public VKontakte account called “Yulya Tsvetkova” and administered a public VK community titled “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on-Amur.” Through these platforms, she published various materials including a post criticizing Article 6.21 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences as discriminatory, posts announcing a project to monitor discrimination against LGBTI individuals, a coming-out story by a teenager, statements about the goals of her VK community, a guide for teachers confronted with homophobic discrimination, and a video by a psychologist explaining how to help LGBTI teenagers accept themselves and prevent suicide. 

In April and May 2019, the Khabarovsk Regional Office of the Federal Security Service (FSB) conducted operational search activities to identify the administrator of these VK communities, suspecting the promotion of homosexuality among minors. After identifying Tsvetkova, the FSB requested extensive user data from VK, including IP addresses, technical support queries, account details, community memberships, and all the content published by Tsvetkova and eleven members of her community. VK complied with this request, providing data from July 2011 to June 2019, which revealed information about Tsvetkova’s personal interests, political beliefs, professional activities, and civic activism. The FSB also obtained expert reports concluding that her material promoted homosexuality among minors—claiming it presented homosexual relationships as normal and that Russia was “backwards” for not accepting homosexuality, which could shape “inappropriate sexual attitudes” in minors. 

On November 21, 2019, the FSB transferred the file to the police, who charged Tsvetkova with an administrative offense the next day. On December 13, 2019, the Justice of the Peace found her guilty of “promoting homosexuality among minors” and fined her 50,000 Russian rubles (approximately 797 USD). Despite acknowledging that the material was not aimed at forcing information about non-traditional sexual relationships onto people or arousing interest in such relationships, the court relied on the expert reports to justify the conviction. The Tsentralnyy District Court upheld this conviction on January 22, 2020, stating that simply disseminating such information was sufficient for the offense, regardless of whether it led to adverse consequences. 

In July 2019, Tsvetkova published two additional posts on her VK community page with an “18+” age restriction sign: one expressing support to “young subscribers” struggling with their sexuality in a homophobic society, and another stating that the community was open to all regardless of sex, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity. On July 2, 2020, she was charged with another administrative offense. Despite presenting an expert report finding that her posts promoted tolerance rather than homosexuality and that “young” referred to people up to 23 years old, the Justice of the Peace found her guilty on July 13, 2020, and sentenced her to a fine of 75,000 Russian rubles (approximately 1,045 USD). The court determined that “young” commonly referred to minors and that the material was accessible to everyone despite the age restriction sign.

Tsvetkova appealed arguing that she had made all possible efforts to prevent dissemination to minors by adding the “18+” restriction sign, that VK did not provide technical means to restrict access to adults only, and that her posts addressed young adults (18-20 years old) facing issues with self-identification and peer bullying in higher education. On August 20, 2020, the Tsentralnyy District Court upheld the conviction but reduced the fine to 50,000 Russian rubles (approximately 640 USD). 

Fifth Application: Gorshkova

Vera Alekseyevna Gorshkova created a VK social media group called “Rainbow Ekb/LGBT Yekaterinburg” in August 2014 and served as its administrator. The group was initially public, inviting people over fourteen years old to post profiles to seek communication, friendship, or relationships. At some point, Gorshkova converted it to a closed group with a visible “18+” age restriction sign and an introduction explicitly stating that users under 18 should leave the page and that the group did not promote anything and was only for adults seeking to connect with others. After this change, users could no longer post profiles directly; instead, Gorshkova, as administrator, became responsible for posting profiles submitted by users. She claimed she rejected profiles from users under 18 years old. She deactivated the group and removed all content in late September 2020.

On October 28, 2020, authorities charged Gorshkova with an administrative offense under Article 6.21 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Police alleged she had posted profiles of LGBT people under 18 years old who were seeking friends and partners for “non-traditional sexual relationships” in a publicly accessible VK group with 258 members—thereby promoting homosexuality among minors. The police included screenshots of profiles from teenagers between fourteen and sixteen years old and enclosed reports from a teacher and psychologist who concluded that the content promoted homosexuality among minors and could lead to “incorrect” life attitudes and negative impacts on mental health. Gorshkova countered with reports from different specialists who concluded the screenshots did not promote homosexuality and merely showed young people seeking support, friendship, or romantic relationships with peers. Her request for an expert examination of the screenshots was rejected.

On November 19, 2020, the Justice of the Peace found Gorshkova guilty and fined her 50,000 rubles (approximately 630 USD). The court determined that she had posted profiles of children aged fourteen to sixteen, thereby promoting homosexuality among minors by disseminating information aimed at leading minors into “non-traditional sexual orientation[s]” and creating a distorted image of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent. Gorshkova appealed, arguing that her conviction violated her rights under Articles 6, 10, and 14 of the ECHR and that publishing profiles of people under eighteen seeking friendships did not constitute promotion of homosexuality. She noted the VK group was not advertised and could only be found by those specifically searching for it, and that the judgment failed to specify which posts were problematic or establish that she had published them. The Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg upheld her conviction on December 14, 2020, finding it lawful, well-reasoned, and justified.

Sixth Application: Sergeyev

The sixth application regarded Aleksey Vladimirovich Sergeyev, a gay man and LGBTI rights activist, who administered a VK social media group called “Union of Straight and LGBT People for Equality” with approximately 30,000 members. The group, created in 2012, aimed to unite straight allies and LGBTI individuals to fight discrimination and advocate for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. The group’s content was primarily informative and educational, covering topics such as violations of LGBTI rights; protection and psychological support for LGBTI people; hate crimes; and relevant history, culture, and art, while also monitoring Russian legislation affecting LGBTI individuals. 

On December 11, 2019, the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk banned the VK group’s content from dissemination in Russia, claiming it promoted homosexuality among minors. This decision was made without notifying Sergeyev, who only learned about it on March 19, 2021, after the webpage had been blocked. When he requested to examine the case file, his request was rejected because he was not considered a party to the proceedings. Sergeyev appealed the decision, arguing that the blocking violated his freedom of expression as the administrator and author of much of the content, that his absence from the proceedings was unlawful, and that the court had not substantiated its findings with expert reports or evidence. 

On December 14, 2021, the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed the judgment because Sergeyev had not been informed of the hearing date. However, on March 11, 2022, the District Court issued a nearly identical judgment again banning the group’s content. Sergeyev appealed again, but on June 21, 2022, the Regional Court upheld the judgment, finding it lawful and justified despite the lack of expert reports. To it, the webpage contained invitations to join meetings supporting “non-traditional sexual relationships.” The VK group remains inaccessible in Russia. 

***

Given the similarity of subject matter, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) joined the applications for a single judgment. While all six applicants alleged a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR, Tsvetkova also alleged a violation of Article 8 (privacy).

---

Decision Overview

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights unanimously delivered the decision. The primary issue before the Court was whether Russia’s ban on “promoting homosexuality among minors” violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) when applied to LGBTI-supportive websites and social media communities, and whether holding administrators liable for user-generated content without clear legal basis violated the “prescribed by law” requirement of Article 10 § 2 of the ECHR. 

On the violation of freedom of expression

The applicants contended that Russia’s legislation banning the “promotion of homosexuality among minors” failed to meet the quality of law requirements due to its vague terminology, which made its application unforeseeable and potentially allowed any LGBTI-related information to be banned. They contended that the interference with their freedom of expression served no legitimate aim and was not “necessary in a democratic society,” as domestic courts effectively criminalized mere mentions of homosexuality or statements presenting LGBTI people as equal to heterosexual people. The applicants emphasized that their content was educational and aimed at supporting LGBTI teenagers in difficulty, reducing violence and intolerance, and providing information on human rights issues—containing no explicitly sexual content.

On the other side, the Government defended the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, claiming it was lawful and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting children’s health, morals, and rights. They argued that children, regardless of sexual orientation, are easily influenced by information on the internet, and that Russian legislation protected them from “harmful” information, such as the “aggressive promotion” of sexual behavior models incompatible with Russia’s moral values. The Government contended that promoting homosexuality could negatively impact children’s sexual self-identification and arouse interest in homosexual relations. It specifically noted that Ms. Tsvetkova knew her material would be accessible to children and lacked the higher education qualifications required to provide sex education. 

The Sphere Foundation, appearing as a third party, submitted that Russia’s law banning the “promotion of homosexuality” was discriminatory and contrary to the Convention, representing one of the first steps in a series of repressive measures against the Russian LGBTI community. It emphasized that blocking dating groups on social networks denied homosexual people safe opportunities to seek relationships, while prohibiting information about homosexuality restricted LGBTI teenagers’ access to objective scientific information about sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual health. The law, according to the foundation, effectively prevented LGBTI discussions in schools, increasing risks of bullying for LGBTI teenagers and sexually transmitted infections, while also creating a chilling effect that led to self-censorship.

The Court began its analysis by examining whether there had been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. It noted that the applicants were website owners and administrators of social networks’ groups who published both their own content and content authored by others. The ECtHR established that, as editors, the applicants “decided what was published and provided a platform for authors, thus taking part in the exercise of freedom of expression.” [paras. 135] It considered that administrative convictions, website blocking measures, and holding applicants liable for user comments, all constituted interferences with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 § 1 of the ECHR. 

Next, the Court assessed whether these interferences were justified under Article 10 § 2—i.e. whether they were prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and were necessary in a democratic society. The ECtHR referred to the general principles on freedom of expression on the internet as summarized in Sanchez v. France and reiterated that restrictions on children’s access to information about same-sex relationships based solely on sexual orientation were incompatible with the “equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society.” [para. 142] Upon examining the legal basis for the interferences, the Court noted they were based on the same provisions prohibiting the “promotion of homosexuality among minors” previously assessed in Bayev v. Russia.” [para. 143] The ECtHR had already found in that case that these provisions did not advance the legitimate aim of protecting morals and were “likely to be counterproductive” in protecting health and others’ rights. [para. 145] Importantly, the Court observed that the websites and groups in question sought to “encourage tolerance and acceptance of LGBTI people, to give support to troubled LGBTI teenagers,” and provided information or space for LGBTI people to connect. [para. 146]

The ECtHR held that the domestic authorities’ restrictions were “based solely on considerations of sexual orientation” without any other basis to consider the publications harmful to children. [para. 149] It dismissed claims that exposure to positive images of homosexuality could change one’s sexual orientation as “lacking any evidentiary basis.” [para. 150] The Court further rejected Russia’s argument that depicting same-sex relationships as equivalent to different-sex relationships was harmful, stating instead that such depictions “advocate[d] respect for and acceptance of all members of a given society in this fundamental aspect of their lives.” [para. 150] Where domestic courts found content “capable of evoking in children the idea that… non-traditional sexual relationships were superior to traditional ones” or “demonstrated contempt for traditional sexual relations,” the ECtHR found no reasoning to justify these claims. On this point, the Court emphasized that while “equal and mutual respect for persons of different sexual orientations is inherent in the whole fabric of the Convention,”  it could not discern any disrespectful aim or effect in the disputed publications. [para. 151]

Subsequently, the Court addressed the issue of age restriction warnings, noting that some applicants had marked their content with “18+” signs, which domestic courts rejected as insufficient without proper explanation. Drawing a distinction from pornographic material, the ECtHR stated, “it is not justified to impose similar restrictions on children’s access to information about same-sex relationships, where such restrictions are based solely on considerations of sexual orientation.” [para. 152] 

Regarding the issue of liability for user-generated content in two applications [Klimova and V.C.], the Court considered that this interference was not “in accordance with law.” The ECtHR held that the domestic courts failed to cite any provisions establishing obligations for administrators to moderate third-party content or imposing liability for failing to do so. The Court emphasized that “responsibilities and liability rules imposed on internet intermediaries should be transparent, clear and predictable.” [para. 157] The ECtHR concluded that all the measures taken against the applicants sought to limit access to information depicting same-sex relationships as equivalent to different-sex relationships by “labelling such information as harmful.” [paras. 153 and 161]  Thus, it determined that these measures were incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. 

In conclusion, the Court held that Russia violated Article 10 of the ECHR in all six of the applications.

On the violation of the right to respect for private and family life 

The Court determined that the collection of Ms. Tsvetkova’s personal data by the FSB from the VK social media company constituted an interference with her right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. As noted by the ECtHR, the FSB collected extensive data from her personal VK account, including IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, passwords, community memberships, and all published content from July 2011 to June 2019. This data revealed sensitive details about her personal interests, political beliefs, professional activities, and civic activism. 

The Court opined that this interference lacked adequate legal safeguards. While Section 10.1 of Russia’s Information Act provided a legal basis for the data collection, the ECtHR noted it failed to meet the requirements of “quality of law” and “necessity in a democratic society.”  As underscored by the Court, the FSB obtained Ms. Tsvetkova’s personal data through a simple request without prior judicial authorization. Furthermore, it determined that the applicant had no effective legal remedies to contest the transmission of her data to security services, as available judicial review proceedings were limited to examining the lawfulness of the actions rather than their necessity in a democratic society.

The ECtHR expressed doubts that the data collection pursued a legitimate aim, as it was conducted in the context of administrative proceedings for promoting homosexuality among minors. The Court had previously established that legal provisions prohibiting such promotion did not advance the legitimate aim of protecting morals and were likely counterproductive for protecting health and the rights of others. In light of this, the Court highlighted that the interference was particularly intrusive given the volume of data collected and its sensitive nature—including political opinions that merit heightened protection. The ECtHR also took into consideration the chilling effect such data collection could have on freedom of expression, noting that Ms. Tsvetkova was targeted for publishing information on LGBTI rights. Given that the alleged offense was classified as administrative rather than criminal under domestic law, and did not involve advocating any sexual practices or unhealthy behaviors, the Court concluded that the collection of the applicant’s personal data was not “necessary in a democratic society.”

In conclusion, the Court held that Russia violated Article 8 of the ECHR in Tsvetkova’s case.

***

In light of the aforementioned violations, the Court ordered the State to pay some of the applicants (considering some specific circumstances) for the pecuniary damages and costs and expenses they endured.

---