The review considers the article “Axioms that destroy the law,” dedicated to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of the legality of the refusal of the Russian authorities to register marriage between three same-sex couples. The author of the peer-reviewed article justifies his criticism of this decision with new axiomatics, that is, some postulates taken without proof, from which, in his opinion, the ECHR proceeds. The proposed review shows that such axiomatics in the Ruling of the Court are not observed either in an open — direct, textually expressed — form, or in a hidden, indirectly meaning extracted from the decision. On the contrary, the Court proves its original premises by inviting the Russian authorities to substantiate the harm that, in their opinion, might arise if a legal institute of same-sex unions were introduced in the country, and also calls for finding a fair balance between the public interests and the interests of the applicants. At the same time, the Court does not insist on the decision of the authorities unpopular in the country’s public opinion on the recognition of same-sex marriages in Russia. The review proposes finding common grounds for compromises between supporters and opponents of same-sex unions: as such, the author offers well-known legal axioms of equality, respect for human dignity. He also justifies that real harm to legal principles in the country is caused by existing public prejudices, and not by new axioms, which, moreover, have not been found in the decision of the ECHR yet.