Communicated on 13 November 2017
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos 39954/09 and 3465/17
Nikolay Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV and Others against Russia
and Sasha Maymi KRIKKERIK against Russia
lodged on 13 May 2009 and 28 December 2016 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE
The applications concern two interviews with public officials published in the national press. In the first interview, published by the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper on 21 September 2009, Mr Betin, the Governor of the Tambov region, said, in particular: “Tolerance!? Damn it. Faggots should be torn to pieces. And the pieces thrown to the wind!”. In the second interview, published by the F Internet news site on 6 November 2013, Mr V. Milonov, a member of Parliament, stated, among others, that gays were “perverts”, that it was permissible to “boot” those of them who took part in gay prides as they were “asking for it” by displaying their provocative banners, and that homosexuality was as immoral as murder.
The applicants asked the competent authorities to initiate criminal proceedings under Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement of hatred or discord as well as abasement of human dignity of a person or a group of persons on the ground of, among others, an affiliation to a social group). The authorities refused to open criminal proceedings, finding that homosexuals were not a social group, that the applicants were not personally targeted by the contested statements and, in respect of the second interview, that Mr Milonov had not known that his statements were going to be published verbatim.
Ms Krikkerik then sued Mr Milonov for compensation of non-pecuniary damages, claiming that his statements had breached her right to respect for her private life. Her civil claim was dismissed on the ground that Mr Milonov had expressed his personal opinion, that his statements had not been insulting and that Ms Krikkerik had not been personally targeted.
QUESTIONS
1. Can the applicants claim to be victims of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, §§ 53 and 54, ECHR 2012)?
2. Given Mr Betin’s and Mr Milonov’s official position and the context in which the contested statements were made, did the respondent State bear responsibility for their statements? If yes, did the statements breach the applicants’ right to respect for their private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention or amount to discrimination on the ground of their sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8? If no, did the Government comply with their positive obligation under Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, to protect the applicants’ private life from alleged interference by a third party (see Vejdeland v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 55, 9 February 2012; Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, ECHR 2012; R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, 12 April 2016; and Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, 17 January 2017)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy