Judges in Strasbourg on Thursday ruled in favor of Lithuanian authorities’ ban on singer Philipp Kirkorov entering the country because he was considered a threat to national security.
The court agreed with the Lithuanian assessment of Kirkorov, who has previously referred to himself as Vladimir Putin’s “representative on stage.”
Why was Kirkorov barred from entry?
In January 2021, Lithuanian migration authorities, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, banned Mr Kirkorov from entering Lithuania for five years
The authorities noted that Kirkorov was a tool of “soft power” for Russia’s propaganda in states of the former Soviet Union. They also found that, by regularly giving concerts in Crimea, he supported the Russian state’s policy of aggression.
Kirkorov lodged a legal appeal, arguing that he was an artist and not interested in politics. The 56-year-old said his songs dealt with love, human relationships, and nature.
The migration authorities reiterated their arguments, specifying that Kirkorov had publicly broadcast the message that the “return” of the Crimean peninsula to Russia was “a glorious and victorious event.”
Mr Kirkorov’s appeal was ultimately, in September 2021, dismissed by Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court. It found that the ban was not disproportionate, with Kirkorov having no family, social, or economic ties in Lithuania.
What did the Strasbourg judges say?
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Lithuanian decision had been based on the applicant’s statements and behavior, and had not been arbitrary or without basis.
In particular, judges found, Kirkorov had openly stated that he supported Russia’s actions in the Crimean peninsula and made the statement about performing on Putin’s behalf.
The judges found the ban had restricted Krikorov from sharing information and ideas in Lithuania, so there had been an interference with his right to freedom of expression.
However, the interference had had a legal basis in both domestic and EU law, and its aim — the protection of national security and public order — had been legitimate.
The court noted that “various means of propaganda, including television, social networks, films, and famous singers, such as the applicant, had been used by Russia against the Baltic States.”
The court noted that Kirkorov’s rights as an EU citizen had been restricted when it came to entering Lithuania, but that this was a country with which he had no firm ties.
Edited by: Wesley Dockery
