Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Discrimination • Private life • Domestic authorities� failure to comply with obligation to respond adequately to homophobic statements made by state officials against members of the LGBTI community • Existing domestic legal framework capable in theory of offering protection against stigmatising statements, but in any event relevant legal provisions not applied to applicants� case • Domestic courts� failure to strike a fair balance between competing Art 8 and 10 rights in the criminal proceedings and to even engage in a balancing exercise in the civil proceedings
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Pere Pastor Vilanova , President , ��������� Georgios A. Serghides, ��������� Yonko Grozev, ��������� Darian Pavli, ��������� Peeter Roosma, ��������� Ioannis Ktistakis, ��������� Andreas Z�nd , judges , and Milan Bla�ko, Section Registrar,
the applications (nos. 39954/09 and 3465/17) 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 four Russian nationals whose particulars are listed in the appended table (�the applicants�), on 13 May 2009 and 28 December 2016 respectively;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.