Alekseyev v Russia (Appl. Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08, 14599/09) and Bayev v Russia (App. No 67667/09)
Documents from the Nov 2018 briefing:
Rule 9 submission by Coming Out and ILGA Europe
October 2018 Action Plan from the Russian Federation
Memo by Mr Warner
Documents from the Nov 2016 briefing:
Rule 9 submission by Coming Out and ILGA-Europe
Decision of the Committee of Ministers, December 2016
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
The Alekseyev v. Russia cases address repeated bans on demonstrations promoting tolerance and respect for the human rights of LGBTI persons, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge those bans. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Convention Articles 11 (right to freedom of assembly), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 11. The execution of judgments process in this case has now been proceeding for 5 ½ years.
The review of execution of judgments process to date and latest developments were presented by Nigel Warner of ILGA-Europe.
In his presentation, Nigel Warner focused on the main recommendations listed in the Rule 9.2 communication submitted on those cases by Coming Out, a St Petersburg-based NGO, and ILGA Europe, in October 2018. According to Mr Warner, the latest Action Plan of the Russian Federation on those cases offers no evidence of any improvement or prospect of improvement in the situation. Furthermore, it appears to repudiate the Bayev judgment, citing a ruling of the RF Constitutional Court to the effect that the “propaganda laws” are consistent with the constitution. The “propaganda laws” continue to be used to the detriment of LGTB youth.
In view of this situation, Mr Warner therefore invited the CM to:
· repeat its request to the Russian authorities to adopt a comprehensive action plan to ensure execution of the Alekseyev and Bayev judgments. This request should, as a minimum, include the repeal of legislation prohibiting so-called “propaganda of homosexual relations”; and
· continue requesting information on the treatment of notifications to hold public events similar to those in the Alekseyev case.