| Applicant name | MINASYAN AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 14 |
| Country | Armenia |
| Application no. | 59180/15 |
| Date | 07/01/2025 |
| Judges | Faris Vehabović, Acting President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Branko Lubarda, Armen Harutyunyan, Tim Eicke, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Anne Louise Bormann |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; private life |
| Keywords | Failure adequate balancing courts |
| Facts of the case | The case concerns media articles targeting the applicants, activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. It raises issues under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | he Court has already found that the civil remedy pursued by the applicants appeared in theory capable of providing protection to them against homophobic hate speech. Thus, the ineffectiveness of that remedy cannot be said to have been evident from the outset, especially in the absence of any relevant domestic case-law. It was therefore not unreasonable for the applicants to lodge a civil claim under Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code, and they cannot be blamed for having tried to put matters right at the domestic level by resorting to that remedy. Furthermore, in their civil claim they argued that they were victims of hate speech and discrimination owing to the nature of the impugned statements, referring in this connection to, inter alia, Article 14.1 of the Constitution, Article 14 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law under that provision, as well as a number of relevant Committee of Ministers Recommendations. Moreover, both the District Court and the Court of Appeal explicitly acknowledged that the applicants were seeking redress in respect of incitement to hatred and discrimination within the scope of their civil claim. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants exhausted domestic remedies and lodged their relevant complaints within six months from the date of the final decision in those proceedings. It follows that the Government’s objections regarding the applicants’ alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies and to comply with the six-month time-limit must be rejected. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | article 8+14 |
| Damage awarded | holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,067 (one thousand and sixty-seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |