CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD8F5C0B { width:6.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s88B97BDC { width:37.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFCD8A20 { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s899CE26F { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCDFAFC34 { width:6.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A48A9E { width:37.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7948C2AE { width:17.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF94473E2 { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 9 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17553/17 ASOCIAŢIA OBŞTEASCĂ CENTRUL DE INFORMAŢII GENDERDOC-M and Others against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 February 2017 communicated on 23 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the unauthorised use of the image of LGBTI persons in a negative context by a political party in its electoral campaign. The first applicant is a non-governmental association registered in Chișinău that represents the interests of LGBT persons in the Republic of Moldova. The other four applicants are individuals, who are members of the aforementioned association. During the 2015 local election campaign, on 26 May 2015 a political party which was running in the 2015 local elections published a video titled “SPRM: We will bring order to the country, the capital, to all our cities and villages.” ( PSRM: Vom face ordine în țară, capitală, în toate orașele și satele noastre ). At one point, the video depicted in the background the individual applicants during an event organised by the applicant association, holding a banner with the name of the event, while I.D., the leader of the party concerned and at the time a member of Parliament, made the following statement: “The Government tries to destroy our traditional and Christian values”. The video was published on the Internet and broadcasted by eight TV channels. On 8 June 2015, the applicants initiated civil proceedings seeking an injunction prohibiting the political party and its leader from using and disseminating the individual applicants’ image. All of the applicants submitted that their right to the protection of their image had been breached by the unauthorised use of their image. The applicants also submitted that their image had been denigrated by the negative statements made in association to them and the event depicted. They argued that in the given context the statements had amounted to hate speech of which they had been a target because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the applicants complained of being subjected to discrimination on account of their sexual orientation. On 16 February 2016 the Chișinău District Court granted the injunction on the grounds that the applicants had not consented to the use of their image by the political party concerned. The first instance court held that the applicants were victims of hate speech, because the statements had constituted an anti-LGBTI rhetoric targeting the individual applicants because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The court awarded the applicant association 220 euros compensation and each of the other applicants 88 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 2 June 2016 in appeal proceedings initiated by the political party, the Chișinău Court of Appeal reversed the first instance court decision, arguing that the applicants were well-known public figures who had expressed their support for the LGBTI community and that the photograph depicting them had been taken during a public event which they had attended. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 23 November 2016. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their private life had been violated. The applicants emphasise that not all of them had publicly disclosed their sexual orientation. They complain that their image was used by a political party to incite hatred and discrimination. The applicants complain, under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention, that the negative political statements discriminated against them as members of LGBTI community and that the State had failed to protect them against homophobic and transphobic hate speech as required by the Convention. The applicants also complain of the State’s failure to secure a legal framework explicitly providing protection against discrimination on the protected grounds of their sexual orientation and gender identity. They also complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a fair trial had been violated. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant association claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of Article 8, alone and taken together with Article 14 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see mutatis mutandis Identoba and Others v. Georgia , no. 73235/12, §§ 47-49, 12 May 2015; Genderdoc-M and M.D. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 23914/15, §§ 24-25, 14   December 2021)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, in respect of the circumstances in which the applicants’ image had been used, did the domestic authorities strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the Convention and the other party’s right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the Convention (see Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 108-113, 7 February 2012; Rodina v. Latvia , nos. 48534/10 and 19532/15, §§ 112-135, 14 May 2020)?   3.     Did the respondent State comply with their positive obligations under Article 8, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, to protect the applicants’ private life from alleged discrimination and hate speech by a third party (see   Nepomnyashchiy and Others v. Russi a , nos. 39954/09 and 3465/17, §§ 72-85, 30 May 2023; Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania , no. 41288/15, §§ 108-116 and 125, 14 January 2020)? APPENDIX Application no. 17553/17 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality and Place of residence   1. ASOCIAŢIA OBŞTEASCĂ CENTRUL DE INFORMAŢII GENDERDOC-M 1998 Moldovan, Chișinău Ms. Străisteanu Doina-Ioana 2. Anastasia DANILOVA 1983 Russian, Chișinău Ms. Străisteanu Doina-Ioana 3. Angelica FROLOV 1974 Moldovan, Chișinău Ms. Străisteanu Doina-Ioana 4. Galina MURZIN 1981 Moldovan, Chișinău Ms. Străisteanu Doina-Ioana 5. Artiom ZAVADOVSCHI 1987 Moldovan, Chișinău Ms. Străisteanu Doina-Ioana