CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2021

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 15 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17766/16 PUBLIC ASSOCIATION INFORMATION CENTER “GENDERDOC-M” against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 March 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ positive obligations in the context of hate speech by third parties. A news portal published various news items and invited users to comment in specially reserved comments sections. One such news item about LGBT community’s plans for a parade was followed by several statements made under pseudonyms and calling for violence and discrimination against LGBT persons in Moldova. The applicant organisation, representing a number of LGBT persons, complained in court against the news portal, but the courts rejected the complaint since the law did not provide for responsibility for statements made by third parties. The case raises issues under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 8 taken alone or in conjunction with Articles 13 and/or 14 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities comply with their positive obligations of preventing dissemination of statements calling for violence and discrimination against persons belonging to sexual minorities (see, mutatis mutandis , Delfi AS v.   Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, ECHR 2015)?