385

Title

Yevstifeyev and others v. Russia (Petrov v. Russia)

Date

03/12/2024

Country

RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Europe)

Adjudication body

European Court of Human Rights

Territorial scope

International

Case number

22327/22

Main themes

Elections or voting
Hate speech
Hate speech - Anti-LGBTI+ hate
Incitement
Respect for private life

Type of expression

Dark humour
Online video
Parody or pastiche
Political humour
Social media

Branch of law

Administrative Law
Criminal Law
International Human Rights Law

Decision direction

Expands expression

Outcome

No violation (State is not responsible)

Relation to previous decision

Agreement

Speaker

Comedian
Gender_Man
Public figure

Target

Collective target

Link to case

Link to analysis

Summary

The pro-government website FAN ran a video to influence a national vote on a proposed amendment to the Russian Constitution, which would define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. This video was set in 2035 and told the story of an orphan being adopted by two men. The child was distressed that he would not have a new mother. To comfort him, one of his fathers, in full make up, offered him a dress to wear. The voice-over asked, “Is this the Russia you choose?” before calling on viewers to vote for the amendments.

This video was then parodied, and uploaded onto Instagram by DK, a comic actor and television presenter. The video showed a mock “gay hunt”. It was also set in 2035 and depicted a father and son in a forest carrying rifles, wearing hunting outfits and hunting gay men. They discuss hunting gay people and use a homophobic slur and calling out “Starbucks” to lure them out of the undergrowth. They shoot a man in colourful clothes and pose with his dead body in the manner of big game hunters. It ends with the tag line “Is this the Russia you choose? Vote for the amendments to the Constitution. Amendment no. 66. Russians are authorised to hunt big game, homosexuals and birds during the summer”.

The applicant, who is openly gay and the executive director of the Moscow LGBT Initiative Group Stimul, a public association for equality and human dignity, lodged a criminal complaint under Article 282 of the Criminal Code. He argued that the video was a call to violence against gay people, in which they were dehumanised and portrayed as prey. This was not pursued by the courts. He then lodged an administrative offence complaint Article 20.3.1 of the CAO and requested that the material be restricted. When a Moscow prosecutor questioned D.K he explained it was a parody of FAN’s video which mocked homophobia by exaggerating it to a grotesque level of absurdity. He considered that the video’s satirical message was obvious and that it was impossible to understand it literally. The prosecutor refused to open a case.

The applicant then brought the case to the ECtHR on the grounds that his Article 8 rights and Article 14 had been violated. The Court was not convinced that the video was approving of hunting gay people. It considered the content, humorous tone, and the context in which it was published. According to the court, the video was a political satire on a subject of general interest and was clearly a parody. The Court considered it sought to mock the homophobic message of FANS’s video by exaggerating it to an absurd extent. The Court stated that as a political satire on a matter of public interest it did not reach the “threshold of severity” required to affect the Article 8 and 14 rights of individuals of the LGBTI community. The case was declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

This video was then parodied, and uploaded onto Instagram by DK, a comic actor and television presenter. The video showed a mock “gay hunt”. It was also set in 2035 and depicted a father and son in a forest carrying rifles, wearing hunting outfits and hunting gay men. They discuss hunting gay people and use a homophobic slur and calling out “Starbucks” to lure them out of the undergrowth. They shoot a man in colourful clothes and pose with his dead body in the manner of big game hunters. It ends with the tag line “Is this the Russia you choose? Vote for the amendments to the Constitution. Amendment no. 66. Russians are authorised to hunt big game, homosexuals and birds during the summer”.

The applicant, who is openly gay and the executive director of the Moscow LGBT Initiative Group Stimul, a public association for equality and human dignity, lodged a criminal complaint under Article 282 of the Criminal Code. He argued that the video was a call to violence against gay people, in which they were dehumanised and portrayed as prey. This was not pursued by the courts. He then lodged an administrative offence complaint Article 20.3.1 of the CAO and requested that the material be restricted. When a Moscow prosecutor questioned D.K he explained it was a parody of FAN’s video which mocked homophobia by exaggerating it to a grotesque level of absurdity. He considered that the video’s satirical message was obvious and that it was impossible to understand it literally. The prosecutor refused to open a case.

The applicant then brought the case to the ECtHR on the grounds that his Article 8 rights and Article 14 had been violated. The Court was not convinced that the video was approving of hunting gay people. It considered the content, humorous tone, and the context in which it was published. According to the court, the video was a political satire on a subject of general interest and was clearly a parody. The Court considered it sought to mock the homophobic message of FANS’s video by exaggerating it to an absurd extent. The Court stated that as a political satire on a matter of public interest it did not reach the “threshold of severity” required to affect the Article 8 and 14 rights of individuals of the LGBTI community. The case was declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.