Schending artikel 10 EVRM door Litouwen

EHRM 23 januari 2023, IEF 21341; 61435/19 (Macaté tegen Litouwen) Een publieke universiteit in Litouwen heeft de distributie van een kinderboek gedurende een jaar stilgelegd omdat in twee van de sprookjesverhalen een relatie tussen mensen van hetzelfde geslacht voorkomt. Daarna is het boek voorzien van een waarschuwing voor lezers tot veertien jaar. Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens oordeelt dat het beperken van toegang tot informatie over homoseksuele relaties bijdraagt aan het voortduren van stigmatisering. Dergelijke beperkingen op de vrijheid van meningsuiting, hoe gering ook, zijn daarom onverenigbaar met de noties van gelijkheid, pluriformiteit en tolerantie. Naar het oordeel van het Hof is sprake van een schending van artikel 10 EVRM.

(ii) Whether the aforementioned aim was legitimate – The Court had already held that a legislative ban on “promotion of homosexuality or non‑traditional sexual relations” among minors did not serve to advance the legitimate aims of protection of morals, health or the rights of others, and that by adopting such laws the authorities reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia, which was incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society. The Grand Chamber fully endorsed that conclusion. That being said, the present case was the first one in which the Court had been invited to assess restrictions imposed on literature about same-sex relationships which was aimed directly at children and written in a style and language easily accessible to them. In those circumstances, the legitimacy of the aim pursued by such restrictions warranted a more extensive analysis.

(α) Relevant general principles – There was a broad consensus – including in international law – in support of the idea that in all decisions concerning children, directly or indirectly, their best interests were a primary consideration. The Court had also acknowledged, in a variety of contexts, that children, in view of their age, were impressionable and more easily influenced than persons of an older age. The Court had examined information aimed at children within the context of the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and emphasised that the State had to ensure that it was conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The Court had also accepted that domestic authorities were justified in limiting children’s access to publications which had been found to contain “an encouragement to indulge in precocious activities harmful for them or even to commit certain criminal offences” or serious and prejudicial allegations against sexual minorities, amounting to hate speech. At the same time, the Court had consistently declined to endorse policies and decisions which embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority.