European Court of Human Rights
23 January 2023
Facts
The applicant, a children’s author, wrote a book of six fairy tales, two of which depicted marriage between persons of the same sex. The book was aimed at nine to ten-year-old children and at the social inclusion of various marginalised social groups. Soon after its publication, concerns were expressed by members of the parliament that stories of same-sex relationships were presented to children. The distribution of the book was then suspended. It was later resumed but the book was marked with a warning label stating that its contents could be harmful to children under the age of 14. The applicant unsuccessfully brought civil proceedings against the publisher.
Complaint
The author complained that there was no legitimate aim for temporary suspension of children’s fairy tale book depicting same-sex relationships and its subsequent labelling as harmful to children under the age of 14.
Court’s ruling
The Court 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.
The Court found that impugned measures amounted to an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, for the following reasons:
- The measures reduced the book’s availability to readers.
- The marking of the book as being harmful to the age group for which it had been intended had affected the applicant’s ability to freely impart her ideas.
- The restrictions imposed on the book depicting various minorities affected the applicant’s reputation as an established children’s author and had been liable to discourage her and other authors from publishing similar literature (chilling effect).
Thus, the measures taken against the applicant’s book had sought to limit children’s access to information depicting same-sex relationships as essentially equivalent to different-sex relationships, labelling such information as harmful, and there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.