CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 June 2020 Published on 22 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39375/19 Jonas VALAITIS against Lithuania lodged on 16 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist who published an article about homosexual people on the Internet portal of a major daily newspaper. The publication received numerous comments by different persons. Twenty two comments, written by twenty persons, were particularly negative towards persons of homosexual orientation. A couple of those comments were directly targeted against the applicant, as the author of the article. He was called “a degenerate”, “a faggot” and “a shitty asshole”, it was suggested that he should be “peed on”, he was urged “not to advertise faggots”, it was also suggested that he “should be prosecuted for propaganda that defended perverts”, and that he “kept his shitty opinion to himself” and “did not offend normal persons”. The comments towards the homosexual persons were even harsher, including a suggestion that they should be “let through the chimney in Auschwitz”. The applicant asked the authorities to start criminal investigation for incitement of hatred and discrimination, under Article   170 §   2 of the Criminal Code. Initially, the authorities refused the request. Afterwards, the criminal investigation was opened and the applicant was granted status of a victim. Eventually, the criminal investigation was discontinued by courts on the ground that the statements in comments constituted their authors’ opinion and had been improper, but had not reached the level of severity to justify prosecution. It had also been impossible to prove the guilt of the author of one of those comments. Under Article   13 of the Convention the applicant complains that the State did not take positive measures to protect persons of homosexual orientation, as well as the applicant, from hate speech. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Is Article   13 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s case (see, mutatis mutandis , Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §   126, 20   March 2018, and Beizaras and Levickas v.   Lithuania , no.   41288/15, §   150, 14   January 2020)?   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to effective remedy, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   The Court refers to the applicant’s grievance that the State authorities had not taken measures to protect him against hate speech linked to his writing about persons of homosexual orientation (see Beizaras and Levickas , cited above, §§   131-56; on the issue of discrimination by association, see also, mutatis mutandis , Guberina v. Croatia , no.   23682/13, §   64 in limine , 22   March 2016, and Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no.   20452/14, §   81, 19   December 2018).