CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s92F1E70 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3081864 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA44C4BD0 { width:18.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA85548BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#0d0d0d } .s9167BAAD { font-family:Arial; color:#0d0d0d } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } THIRD SECTION CASE OF KLIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33421/16 and 6 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Private life • Collection by the security services of user data from the social networking platform related to one applicant’s networking account and the social networking community she administered in the framework of administrative-offence proceedings for promoting homosexuality among minors • Lack of sufficient safeguards against abuse • Collection of large amounts of personal data, including sensitive data, over an extended period, rendered interference intrusive and was capable of having a chilling effect • Interference not “necessary in a democratic society” Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Convictions for an administrative offence in connection with content published by some of the applicants (authored by them or others) in social networking groups or communities they administered and/or the blocking of their websites or webpages for “promoting homosexuality among minors” • Principles set out in Macatė v.   Lithuania [GC] applied • Unjustifiable restrictions based solely on considerations of sexual orientation • No basis to consider the publications to be inappropriate or harmful to children’s growth and development • Impugned measures incompatible with Art   10 in so far as they sought to limit children’s access to information depicting same-sex relationships as essentially equivalent to different-sex relationships • Convictions of two applicants for an administrative offence for content posted by users, without prior content moderation, in social networking groups or communities they created and administered, based on expansive and unforeseeable interpretation and application of domestic law • Relevant legal provision did not allow applicants to foresee, to a reasonable degree in the circumstances, the consequences of a failure to delete third ‑ party content published • Interference not “in accordance with the law”   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 4 February 2025   FINAL   04/05/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Klimova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   33421/16, 8156/20, 32416/20, 39855/20, 10497/21, 33277/21 and 46226/21) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the six Russian nationals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates given in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged violations of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and their right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation in all applications; of the right to a fair hearing in applications nos. 39855/20, 10497/21 and 33277/21; of the right to respect for one’s private life in application no. 39855/20; and of the right to an effective remedy in application no. 46226/21; and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the observations submitted by the Government in applications nos.   33421/16, 39855/20 and 10497/21; the observations submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Sphere Foundation, a Russian LGBTI rights non-governmental organisation, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section in applications nos. 8156/20, 32416/20, 33277/21 and 46226/21; the decision to grant   anonymity   in application no. 32416/20; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an   ad hoc   judge, applying Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of the Court by analogy (see   Kutayev v.   Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ convictions for an administrative offence and/or the blocking of their websites or webpages on social networking sites for “promoting homosexuality among minors”. One application (no.   39855/20 (Ms Tsvetkova)) also concerns the collection by the security services of user data related to the applicant’s personal social networking account and to the social networking community administered by her. THE FACTS 2.     The Government were   initially represented by Mr M. Galperin and Mr   A. Fedorov, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 3.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. klimova v . russia (Application n O . 33421/16) 4 .     The applicant Ms Klimova is a journalist and the founder of an online support project for LGBTI teenagers “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” (“ Дети-404. ЛГБТ-подростки” ). The name refers to the internet error message “Error 404 - Page not found” and alludes to the invisibility of LGBTI adolescents and their particular problems in the LGBTI-intolerant environment of Russia. She was the administrator of the project’s internet site and of a dedicated online community on the social networking site VKontakte (VK) which provided a space for teenagers to discuss LGBTI issues and support each other. 5.     In her capacity as the VK community’s administrator the applicant posted, after pre-moderation, “letters” received from community users on the community public webpage and she was responsible for moderating comments published by users after they had been posted. 6 .     The community rules stated that the discussion or promotion of the act of engaging in any sexual behaviour, whether traditional or non-traditional, was prohibited. Posting comments belittling others’ emotions or victim blaming was prohibited, as was making homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, ageist or xenophobic statements; using foul language or insults; making calls for violence; trolling (causing distress deliberately); or inserting any hyperlinks. The rules also stressed that it was not a dating community, and dating advertisements or proposals to meet up were therefore prohibited. Administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant 7 .     On 18 November 2014 the Russian telecoms regulator (Roskomnadzor)   charged the applicant with an administrative offence under Article   6.21 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”, see paragraphs 87 and 88 below). Roskomnadzor said that it had received more than 130 complaints from citizens and associations, including from the Young Guard (the youth wing of the pro ‑ government party United Russia), about the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers”. They claimed that the community’s public webpage, which was administered by the applicant, contained material aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors. In particular, it contained: –     a letter from a young man describing his teenage experience of self ‑ identification and of how he had learnt to be proud of being gay and of having a boyfriend; –     a video showing a young man saying that he was proud of being gay and that gay teenagers were special; –     a letter from a teenage girl describing the experience of her first romantic date with a girl; –     users’ comments criticising a mother who had scolded her gay teenage child and advising that child to disregard or to make fun of her negative comments about his homosexuality; –     a user’s comment wishing happiness to a gay teenager who had moved to the USA and stating that equal rights in the USA had been gained rather than given; –     a user’s comment stating that gay people did not have to justify themselves by saying that they had not chosen their sexual orientation: sexual orientation was a private matter and no one had a right to reproach others for being different; –     users’ comments advising a gay teenager who felt guilty about her sexual orientation because it was incompatible with her religious beliefs to renounce her religious beliefs; saying that religious beliefs could be chosen while sexual orientation could not be; and that a God who punished love was unworthy. 8 .     On an unspecified date, the administrative offence file was sent to a justice of the peace for adjudication.   The file contained an expert report dated 6 December 2014 by a psychologist, Ms M., which had been commissioned by the Young Guard. Ms M. found that the material described in paragraph 7 above aimed to persuade gay people to accept themselves and to give them hope for a happy life and the support of the LGBT community. It contributed to the prevention of suicide attempts, which were common among the target audience. Although its aims were good, the means it used to put its message across were inadequate because they included elements of the explicit and implicit promotion of homosexuality. The report said the material was very dangerous because it tried to present homosexual relationships as a variant of the norm and to “legitimise the sin”. It encouraged gay people to try to expand the limits of what was considered socially acceptable in order to overcome their social rejection. Furthermore, the material could arouse children’s and teenagers’ interest in non-traditional sexual relationships and make them develop a non-traditional sexual mindset. It presented a positive image of gay people and of homosexual relationships. It also created a distorted image of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent. Lastly, it described the LGBT community as consisting of “normal, intelligent and educated people” and therefore more attractive than the rest of the society. 9 .     The applicant filed an expert report dated 18 December 2014 by a psychiatrist, Mr V., with the Justice of the Peace. Mr V. found that the material described in paragraph 7 above did not contain any erotic or pornographic content, suggestions of sexual relations, promotion of sexual relations between minors, or distorted information about sexual or gender identity, sexual development or gender role identification. Nor did it contain any promotion of homosexuality, such as ideas that non-traditional sexual relationships were better than traditional ones. The authors of the disputed letters and the comments on them asked for, and gave, emotional and psychological support in connection with struggles related to their sexual orientation and gender identity and to homophobic intolerance from others. The VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” promoted the ideas of respect for differences, human rights, and mutual support. It urged troubled teenagers to seek help from peers or professionals and provided ways of seeking such help, including through online psychological consultations. It therefore contributed to the prevention of suicide among teenagers, especially in remote regions where professional psychological help was not easily accessible. 10 .     When questioned at the hearing, Mr V. confirmed his findings, adding that the community’s page did not contain any comparisons between traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships or any statements that it was better to be gay than straight. “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” was the only online project in the Russian language specialising in providing psychological support to LGBTI teenagers in difficulty. Because of its undoubted social usefulness, it was very important to maintain that project. 11 .     The applicant also filed the following expert reports with the Justice of the Peace, which contained similar findings as in paragraph 9 above: -     a report dated 22   December 2014 by a psychiatrist, Mr I.; -     a report dated 6 February 2015 by a psychologist, Ms T.; and -     a report dated 10   March 2015 by a panel of three psychologists. Ms T. particularly stressed that the disputed material did not contain any discussions of sexual relations and was focused on the emotional and psychological struggles of gay teenagers. The material being examined did not contain any information promoting the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships. Mr I. and Ms T. also observed that, far from claiming that homosexual relationships were better than heterosexual ones, the material in question, on the contrary, showed the difficulties with which gay people were confronted, such as intolerance and discrimination. Lastly, the panel of expert psychologists found that the authors’ motivation was to seek psychological support for their difficulties with self-acceptance and with being accepted by their families and peers, and that they did not appear to have any intention of convincing others to become gay. 12 .     On 3 August 2015 the Justice of the Peace of the 5th Court Circuit of the Dzerzhinskiy District of Novyy Tagil found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of “public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors” (Article   6.21 § 2 of the CAO, see paragraphs   87 and 88 below) and sentenced her to a fine of 50,000 Russian roubles   (RUB) (about 757 euros (EUR) at the time). It found that the applicant, in her capacity as the administrator of the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers”, had published users’ posts and had failed to delete users’ comments promoting homosexuality. Relying on an expert report of Ms M. (see paragraph 8 above), the Justice of the Peace found that the material described in paragraph 7 above gave a positive image of non ‑ traditional sexual relationships. It was capable of evoking in children the idea that it was good to be gay and that non-traditional sexual relationships were superior to traditional ones and were more important than religious beliefs. The material in question therefore aimed at creating in minors a non ‑ traditional sexual orientation, promoting the attractiveness of non ‑ traditional sexual relationships and creating a distorted image of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent. 13.     The applicant appealed. In her grounds for appeal she said, among other things, that the Justice of the Peace had not attempted to draw a distinction between “providing information” on LGBT issues and the “promotion” of homosexuality, as required by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 September 2014 (for a summary, see Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos.   67667/09 and 2 others, § 25, 20 June 2017). The VK community in issue provided a space for LGBTI teenagers to discuss difficulties with which they were confronted; it did not promote homosexuality. Nor had it been proven that she had had an intention to promote homosexuality (see the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23 September 2014, cited in Bayev and Others, cited above, § 25). Her intention had been to provide psychological support to troubled LGBTI teenagers. 14.     On 30 November 2015 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhnyy Tagil upheld the conviction on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well ‑ reasoned and justified. The court added that the applicant should have understood that the simple act of giving information about homosexuality could have elements of “promotion”. The expert reports she had filed could not prove that there had been no corpus delicti in her actions. They simply showed that there were different opinions in society about what actions could be considered as amounting to the promotion of homosexuality. The blocking of the VK community and of the website The blocking of the VK community 15.     On 7 May 2014 the Barnaul prosecutor applied to a court for a ban on the contents of the webpage of the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” and four unrelated VK webpages (including a gay dating web page and a gay pornography web page) from dissemination in Russia. The prosecutor claimed that the webpages promoted homosexuality among minors. He enclosed 146 pages of screenshots taken from those webpages. 16.     On 7 August 2015 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Barnaul banned the contents of the five VK webpages referred to by the prosecutor, including the webpage of the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” from dissemination in Russia for promotion of homosexuality among minors. Without a separate examination of the contents of each of the five webpages, the District Court found that they contained photographs of genitalia and of men having sex with men. They also contained proposals for same-sex dates and homosexual sex, as well as statements like “it is ok to be gay”. Access to the webpages was unrestricted and they were therefore accessible to children. Even a single exposure to such information was harmful to children’s sexual identity and psychological and moral development. The court relied on section 15.1 of the Information Act (see paragraph 90 below). 17.     The applicant was not informed about the hearing and learned about the decision only on 21 September 2015, after the webpage had been blocked. She lodged an appeal. Her grounds for appeal included that she had not been informed about the proceedings and had not been able to participate in them. She further claimed that the 146 pages of screenshots submitted by the prosecutor did not contain any screenshots from the “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” webpage or any other information about the contents of that webpage. The District Court had not in fact examined the contents of that webpage and had not specified what information published on that webpage it considered problematic and in what way it promoted homosexuality among minors. 18 .     The applicant submitted the following expert reports: -     a report of 6   February 2015 by a psychologist, Ms   T. (see paragraph 11 above); -     another report, of 10   March 2015, by a panel of three psychologists (see paragraph 11 above); and -     a further report, of 20   December 2015, by a psychiatrist, Mr V. Mr V. essentially reiterated his conclusions as described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above. 19 .     On 13 January 2016 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment of 7   August 2015 on appeal, finding it lawful, well-reasoned and justified. It held, in particular, that the case file contained one screenshot from the webpage of the VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers”, and that that screenshot contained information promoting homosexuality among minors. The Regional Court did not give any further details. It also found that the judgment of 7   August 2015 had not affected the applicant’s rights, including her rights as the administrator of the webpage in question, and had not imposed any obligations on her. Given that, the District Court had not been required to involve her in the proceedings or invite her to the hearing. 20 .     The applicant submitted a copy of the screenshot from the case file that the Regional Court had referred to. The screenshot contained the following description of the “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” project: “When browsing the internet, you may sometimes receive a message “404 – Page Not Found”. Our society believes that LGBT teenagers do not exist, as if gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people came from Mars as adults. Meanwhile there is an LGBT child growing up in one in twenty Russian families: they are invisible 404 ‑ children. Hatred from homophobic people around them makes teenagers’ lives hell, psychologically traumatises them and sometimes simply kills them. LGBT-teenagers are the most vulnerable invisible victims of homophobia. People, stop. Listen to them. They are your children. Who knows, maybe you will see a letter from your child here.” It also contained the contact details of psychologists and lawyers and the rules of the VK community (see paragraph 6 above). 21.     On 15 June 2016 a judge of the Altay Regional Court refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant to the Presidium of that court for examination. 22.     On 25 July 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration, finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings. 23.     The VK community “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” remains inaccessible in Russia. The blocking of the website 24.     On 5 November 2015 the Barnaul prosecutor applied to a court with a request to ban the contents of “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” internet site from dissemination in Russia, claiming that it promoted homosexuality among minors. 25.     The applicant submitted the following expert reports to the court: -     a report of 29   March 2016 by a psychologist, Ms T.; and -     a report of 22 March 2016 by a psychiatrist, Mr V. These reports contained the same findings as the previous expert reports (see paragraphs 9-11 and 18 above). 26 .     During the hearing the applicant asked the prosecutor to specify the information which promoted homosexuality among minors. The prosecutor replied that all the information on the internet site in question did that. 27 .     On 13 April 2016 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Barnaul banned the contents of “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” internet site from dissemination in Russia for promoting homosexuality among minors, by reference to section 15.1 of the Information Act (see paragraph 90 below). The court found that the information published on that internet site was harmful to the development of children’s sexual identity and psychological and moral development because it could make them develop a non-traditional sexual mindset. It did not provide any further reasoning or specify what information published on that internet site it considered problematic. 28.     On 22 June 2016 the Altay Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the case file contained one screenshot from the disputed internet site. That screenshot contained information promoting homosexuality among minors. The Regional Court did not give any further details about the content of the screenshot. It further noted that the website was accessible to all and did not require any registration or password. 29 .     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. She argued, inter alia , that the only screenshot in the case file contained a description of the “Children ‑ 404. LGBT teenagers” project stating that its aim was to give support to LGBT teenagers and that professional psychologists and lawyers worked for it. The information simply told LGBT teenagers in trouble where they could seek help and did not promote homosexuality. 30.     On 20 January 2017 a judge of the Altay Regional Court refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant to the Presidium of that court for examination. The fact that the District Court had not specified what information it considered problematic did not mean that its judgment was unlawful. The District Court had analysed the contents of the website before deciding the case. 31.     On 28 June 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration, finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings. 32.     The “Children-404. LGBT teenagers” website remains inaccessible in Russia. Yedemskiy v . Russia (application n o . 8156/20) 33 .     The applicant Mr Yedemskiy was the founder and owner of the www.gay.ru website, one of the oldest and largest LGBTI-themed websites in Russia, which was created in 1997. According to the applicant, it had attracted over 160,000,000 unique visitors, with up to 40,000 views per day. The website included sections such as “Society”, “Art”, “People”, “Science”, and “Lifestyle”, where it published news, comments, and reviews on political, social and cultural life. It also featured news from the LGBTI community and information on the gay rights movement. The website was marked with an “18+” content rating. 34.     On 16 October 2017 the Khakassiya prosecutor applied to a court for the contents of www.gay.ru website to be banned from dissemination in Russia under section 15.1 of the Information Act (see paragraph 90 below) and section 5(2) of the Protection of Children Act (see Bayev and Others , cited above, § 32). The prosecutor claimed that it promoted homosexuality among minors. In particular, it contained “information about the possibility of getting involved in same-sex relationships” that could arouse interest in children and teenagers and create a distorted image of traditional and non ‑ traditional sexual relationships as socially equivalent. It could create a desire in minors to get involved in same-sex relationships which would present a real risk to their health. It was also harmful to their psychological, moral, spiritual and physical development and undermined family values. The information was accessible to all and could be copied and shared without any restrictions. The ban on disseminating that information was necessary to protect the foundation of the constitutional order, morals, health, the rights and legitimate interests of minor children and national security. The prosecutor filed two screenshots of the website featuring news headlines about the “Side by Side” LGBTI film festival and a review of the most frequently discussed topics. 35 .     On 15 November 2017 the Altayskiy District Court of Khakassiya banned the dissemination of the contents of the www.gay.ru website in Russia for promoting homosexuality among minors, by reference to section 15.1 of the Information Act (see paragraph 90 below). It found from the materials in the case file that the prosecutor had discovered information promoting homosexuality among minors on the gay.ru website. That information was accessible to all. It could facilitate the commission of unlawful acts and administrative offences and thereby harm the public interest and the rights of children by undermining their physical, intellectual, psychological, spiritual and moral development. The decision did not provide any further reasoning or specify what information published on that website it considered problematic. 36 .     The applicant was not informed about the hearing and learned about the decision on 29 March 2018, after the website had been blocked. In his grounds for appeal he claimed that he had not been notified about the hearing date and had been therefore unable to participate. He further argued that the court had not examined any expert reports or other evidence showing that the website promoted homosexuality among minors. Nor had it attempted to draw a distinction between the neutral “provision of information” on LGBT issues and “promotion” of homosexuality, as required by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23   September 2014 (for a summary, see Bayev and Others , cited above, § 25). Furthermore, banning of the entire contents of the website had been disproportionate and therefore incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention, as the court had not distinguished between illegal material and material that had not been found to be illegal. The applicant also argued that the website was clearly marked with an “18+” content rating as required by domestic law. 37 .     On 19 July 2018 the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. Having examined the screenshots filed by the prosecutor, the court found that the information provided was not “neutral”: it demonstrated contempt for traditional sexual relationships, promoted a homosexual lifestyle and aimed to arouse interest in same-sex relationships. The fact that the information being considered promoted homosexuality was so obvious to the court that an expert report was not necessary. The court also rejected the applicant’s argument that the ban had been disproportionate and incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention as unconvincing. It held that it was permissible to limit human rights and freedoms where their exercise would breach the rights and freedoms of others. It was insufficient to mark the content with “18+” age restriction sign as that sign was in the same place as the content. The applicant had not been informed about the hearing because his contact details could not be found on the screenshots available in the case file. 38.     In his cassation appeal the applicant claimed, among other things, that the District and Supreme Courts had not specified what information published on the website they considered problematic. 39.     On 15 January 2019 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Khakassiya Republic declined to refer the cassation appeal the applicant had lodged to the Presidium of that court for examination. 40.     On 1 August 2019 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declined to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration, finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings. 41.     The website in question remains inaccessible in Russia. V.C. v . Russia (application n o . 32416/20) 42.     In 2008 the applicant V.C. created a group in VK called “Gay Chelny”. This was a public group open to all. Its members could publish their own content, including dating advertisements. According to the applicant, he had been the administrator of that group until 2010, when he ceased to be a member. The group continued to function without his involvement through user-generated content. However, his contact details remained in the “Contacts” section, by an oversight. 43.     In 2009 he created another VK group “Gay Chelny RGC”. This was a closed group: it was necessary to apply for membership and the administrator could accept or reject the application. The content was visible only to approved members. According to the applicant, as the administrator of the group he accepted membership applications only from individuals who were over 18 years old. He also moderated the VK group by regularly monitoring it and removing insulting or pornographic user-generated content. 44.     According to the applicant, the aim of the groups was to provide a platform where gay people could meet and interact with each other. 45.     On 15 August 2019 the Naberezhnye Chelny prosecutor charged the applicant with an administrative offence under Article   6.21 § 2 of the CAO (see paragraphs 87 and 88 below). He claimed that material promoting homosexuality among minors had been on both groups’ webpages. In particular, the “Gay Chelny” webpage carried "hookup" advertisements either from young men between fifteen and seventeen years old, or addressed to young men between sixteen and twenty-two years old. It also had photographs and images of genitalia and of people in non-traditional sexual relationships, and was accessible to all. 46 .     On 30 September 2019 the Justice of the Peace of the 6 th Court Circuit of Naberezhnye Chelny found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence under Article   6.21 § 2 of the CAO (see paragraphs 87 and 88 below) and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 50,000 (about EUR 714). On the basis of the material in the case file she held that the “Gay Chelny” group was open to all. It had 291 members of whom eleven were under eighteen years old. It contained "hookup" advertisements either from young men between fifteen and seventeen years old or addressed to young men between sixteen and twenty-two years old, as well as sexually explicit content. “Gay Chelny RGC” group had 279 members of whom nine were under eighteen   years old. Among other posts, it contained the following: “Hello everyone, I want to know your opinion. How would you feel if there were a themed club for LGBT in our city? Share your opinion in the comments” and “Stop homophobia, we ask the opposition to support the protection of LGBT rights in Russia.”. Those publications undermined traditional spiritual, moral, and family values and promoted the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships. As the administrator of those groups, the applicant should have known that “information” about homosexuality might in some cases be equivalent to “promotion” of homosexuality and that the content could be accessible to children. 47.     The applicant appealed. He complained that the Justice of the Peace had rejected his request for an expert report on whether the VK groups in question contained material promoting homosexuality among minors. He further argued that he had ceased to be a member of the “Gay Chelny” group in 2010 and had therefore not been an administrator of it since then. “Gay Chelny RGC” was a closed group whose content was only visible to its members and was not intended for children. He rejected membership applications from people under 18 years old. However, he had no technical means of verifying whether the age given on the membership application was correct as he could not check identity documents. It was therefore technically impossible to exclude people under 18 years old if they lied about their age when they made their membership application, and they could then change the age they claimed after the application had been accepted. Although the Justice of the Peace had found that some of the members were under 18 years old, she had not checked whether the age given was correct. There was therefore no proof that some of the members of the group were under 18   years old. Furthermore, the Justice of the Peace had not specified what information published on the webpages amounted to the promotion of homosexuality. The mere fact of creating an online group uniting homosexual people did not amount to an administrative offence. The applicant had been found liable for content published by other people. Although he moderated posts on the “Gay Chelny RGC” webpage after they had been published, he could not always remove questionable content immediately, for lack of time. In any event, publication of dating advertisements did not amount to the promotion of homosexuality. 48.     On 30 October 2019 the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court upheld the conviction on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. Tsvetkova v . Russia (applications n os . 39855/20 and 10497/21) The first set of administrative offence proceedings 49 .     The applicant Ms Tsvetkova is an LGBTI and women’s rights activist. She had a personal public VK account called “Yulya Tsvetkova” and administered a public VK community “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on ‑ Amur” (literally translated from Russian as “Clandestine Supper”). 50 .     She published the following, among other things: –     a post criticising Article   6.21 § 2 of the CAO (see paragraphs 87 and 88 below) as being discriminatory and stating that the promotion of homosexuality could not work because homosexuality was not a choice, nor was it a disease or deviation; –     two posts informing the readers about the launch of a project to monitor discrimination against LGBTI individuals in the Khabarovsk region, explaining its aims and inviting victims of homophobic hate crimes or discrimination to fill in an anonymous questionnaire; –     a coming-out story written by a teenager from a small remote town; –     two posts about the goals of the VK community “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on-Amur”: to give information and exchange views on LGBTQIAP+ issues; to announce events of interest to that community; to promote safety, visibility and acceptance; to support LGBTI individuals including by creating an online safe space for peer-to-peer support; and to monitor discrimination against LGBTI individuals in the Khabarovsk region; –     a guide for teachers confronted with homophobic discrimination; –     a video by a psychologist explaining how to help an LGBTI teenager to accept himself and survive social rejection and how to prevent suicide. 51.     On 8 April and 23 May 2019 the Khabarovsk Regional Office of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) performed operational-search activities to establish the identity of the administrator of VK communities mentioned in paragraph 49 above, who was suspected of promoting homosexuality among minors. The FSB successfully identified the administrator of those VK communities as the applicant and established her home address. 52 .     On 30 May 2019 the FSB asked the VK company to supply a range of user information linked to the applicant’s personal VK account and to the VK accounts of eleven members of the “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on ‑ Amur” community. The request included the IP addresses used to access these accounts for as long as records had existed, any reports of unauthorised access, technical support queries, account restrictions imposed, and any changes to user details, namely telephone numbers, email addresses, family names, first names and passwords. They also asked for information about what online communities had been created and administered by these users; what communities, including private ones, they were members of; and all the content published on their account walls. Additionally, the FSB asked for the user details of the creators and administrators of the VK community “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on ‑ Amur”, its member list mentioning each member’s user details, and all the content published, specifying the time, IP address, and user ID associated with each publication. The request cited section 10.1 of the Information Act (see paragraph 89 below) and the Operational-Search Activities Act, although it did not specify which provision of the latter act was being referred to. 53 .     The VK company complied with this request on 7 June 2019, providing data from between July 2011 and June 2019. The data about the communities the applicant belonged to and the content published on her account walls revealed, inter alia , information about the applicant’s personal interests, political and other beliefs, her professional and artistic activities and her civic and political activism. 54 .     The FSB obtained two expert reports about the material described in paragraph 50 above, dated 9 and 25 September 2019 and given by a panel of two psychologists and a philologist. The experts concluded that the disputed material promoted homosexuality among minors. In particular, it drew attention to the LGBT community. It contained clear and specific instructions on how to defend the interests of members of the LGBT community. Furthermore, the abbreviation “LGBT” was repeated many times. It presented homosexual relationships as a variant of the norm and claimed that this was accepted by the entire world except backward countries, implying that Russia was “backwards” because homosexuality was not considered normal there. It also promoted the LGBT online community “The Last Supper – LGBTQIAP+on-Amur”, which provocatively used Biblical references in its name. All the material under examination, when considered as a whole, had the potential to shape inappropriate (homosexual) sexual attitudes and behaviour in minors and to undermine their family values and the value they attached to their own lives and health. Given that teenagers were psychologically unstable, the material in question could unbalance them and contribute to the formation of a neurotic personality. In particular, it could arouse interest in a homosexual lifestyle. It was clear from its content that the disputed material was addressed to, inter alios , m