Pink V Republic of Armenia 

Facts of the Case:

• In 2017, Pink applied to the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia requesting that three posters and videos it had produced be recognized as social advertising. The materials aimed to increase the visibility of LGBT+ persons, promote equality and tolerance, and raise public awareness in the field of human rights.
• By an order of the Minister of Culture, the application was rejected based on the opinion of the Republican Commission. The latter stated that the submitted materials did not relate to any issue of public importance and did not contain elements of social awareness. The Commission also emphasized that society was already informed about such topics and that there was no need for additional awareness, and that the materials in fact advertised specific organizations.
• Pink challenged the refusal before the Administrative Court, arguing that the decision lacked legal justification and was manifestly discriminatory. However, the Court of First Instance rejected the claim, interpreting the concept of social advertising extremely narrowly and concluding that the submitted materials could not be considered social advertising because they did not relate to all possible social issues provided for by law. The decision was appealed.
• In 2020, the Court of Appeal held that the court of first instance had misinterpreted the law and returned the case for a new examination.
• After reconsideration, however, the court of first instance again rejected the claim, stating that the materials were not aimed at any field of public importance and did not pursue the goal of protecting a specific human right or informing broad segments of the public about any important issue. The court also concluded that the Ministry’s decision was not based on sexual orientation or discriminatory treatment and that the applicant had not proven the fact of differential treatment.
• In 2024, the Court of Appeal, again examining the complaint against the subsequent decision of the Administrative Court, upheld this position.
• The Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s complaint purely on technical grounds without addressing the merits of the case. During the proceedings it was revealed that during the same period other materials on different topics had been recognized as social advertising, including those related to the prevention of domestic violence and environmental protection, which contained clear value-based and ideological messages. Further inquiries also revealed that in recent years almost all applications for social advertising concerned environmental issues and were mostly approved.
• On April 18, 2025, after nearly seven years of ineffective litigation in domestic courts, an application was submitted to the European Court of Human Rights requesting recognition of the discrimination demonstrated by the state on the following grounds:
• The justifications of the Ministry of Culture, as well as their subsequent confirmation by the courts, demonstrate an approach based on prejudice toward LGBT+ persons. In this way the applicant was subjected to differential and less favorable treatment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which cannot be considered objectively and reasonably justified.

Strategic Importance of the Case

During nearly eight years of litigation, the courts of the Republic of Armenia have effectively failed to provide a legal assessment of the discriminatory position and reasoning of the Ministry of Culture and the affiliated commission, which demonstrates both a legislative gap and deficient judicial practice in examining discrimination cases. In other words, the absence of legislative regulation has allowed courts to avoid addressing the circumstances of the discrimination case in detail and to refrain from conducting an effective examination in accordance with international human rights standards. At the same time, due to the courts’ lack of competence or political will, the constitutional norm prohibiting discrimination has also not been effectively applied in judicial practice. Despite the fact that in 2024 the European Court of Human Rights addressed the provision of effective remedies against discrimination in its judgment in the case of Minasyan and Others v. Armenia, judicial practice once again operated with the same ineffectiveness as in that case in 2014.

Thus, the strategic objective of the case is to influence the establishment of effective legislative regulations concerning the prevention of discrimination and accountability, as well as the full and substantive examination of discrimination cases in practice, by developing ECHR case-law interpretation concerning legislative gaps and inadequate interpretations.

Legal Grounds of the Complaint Submitted to the European Court of Human Rights

The state violated the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights through the actions and decisions of both the Ministry of Culture and the courts. In particular, the decision not to recognize the videos and posters as social advertising was not based on their failure to meet legislative requirements, but rather on the fact that the submitted materials related to the rights and equality of LGBT+ persons.

The position of the European Court of Human Rights will be presented after publication.