When support is called ”propaganda”: The ECtHR ruling against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in the case of “Klimova and Others v. Russia” that Russia has violated Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is a significant decision, as in the past decade, Russia has enacted several discriminatory laws restricting the rights of LGBTI individuals and has exerted pressure, particularly on civil society organizations, activists, and journalists.

In 2013, Elena Klimova created the online platform Deti-404, where LGBTI teenagers could share their problems and receive support.

In 2014, Roskomnadzor (Russia’s state regulatory agency) claimed that the platform was promoting “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” A Russian court upheld this claim, ruling that the platform engaged in such “propaganda” among minors. As a result, Klimova was found guilty and fined 50,000 rubles, a decision later confirmed by the appellate court.

The government’s accusations were based on five letters, one video, and their comments published on the platform. The court concluded that this content encouraged “non-traditional relationships” and fostered interest in them.

Klimova denied the allegations, arguing that the platform provided support to teenagers. However, the court, relying on “expert opinions,” ruled that the platform violated the law and that Klimova, as the administrator, had deliberately failed to remove the relevant content.

The ECtHR concluded that Russian authorities had unlawfully restricted Elena Klimova’s freedom of expression by holding her accountable for managing the Deti-404 online platform. The court also emphasized that Russia’s law on “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” is excessively vague and broad, leading to arbitrary enforcement.

Furthermore, the actions taken by Russia against Klimova were discriminatory based on sexual orientation. The Russian law explicitly targets LGBTI content, distinguishing it from other forms of speech. The authorities failed to justify why discussions on LGBTI issues were deemed harmful, while discussions on heterosexual relationships were not restricted.

This ECtHR ruling reaffirms the court’s previous stance that Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” laws violate human rights. It aligns with prior ECtHR rulings, including the 2017 case of “Bayev and Others v. Russia,” where the court had already declared similar laws illegal and discriminatory.