<\/span><\/h3>\nStoyanova v. Bulgaria concerned the homophobic murder of the applicant\u2019s 26-year-old son. His attackers, secondary-school students, had singled him out for assault because they had thought he looked like a homosexual. The attackers had been found guilty of aggravated murder, but had been given sentences which were below the statutory minimum after the courts took into account mitigating factors such as their young age and clean criminal records.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, finding that, despite the clearly established finding that the reason behind the attack on the applicant\u2019s son had been the perpetrators\u2019 hatred for homosexuals, there had not been any tangible legal consequences in the Bulgarian courts.<\/p>\n
Identoba and Others v. Georgia 2015 \u00a0concerned a peaceful demonstration organised by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) \u2013 the first applicant \u2013 in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators outnumbering the marchers. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention with respect to the 13 applicants who had participated in the march. Moreover, the authorities, who knew or ought to have known of the risks surrounding the demonstration, had therefore been under an obligation \u2013 but had failed \u2013 to provide adequate protection. Lastly, noting that Georgian criminal law provided that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity should be treated as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of an offence.<\/p>\n
Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia concerned a police raid on the office of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisation in Tbilisi. The applicants, who worked at the organisation, complained that the police had insulted and threatened them, and put them through humiliating strip-searches. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention under its substantive limb taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Of particular concern for the Court was the fact that neither the police nor the Georgian Government had given reasons for the strip-searches, leading it to conclude that their sole purpose had been to embarrass and punish the applicants for their association with the LGBT community.<\/p>\n
Sabali\u0107 v. Croatia The applicant, who had been attacked in a bar by a man to whom she had disclosed her homosexual orientation, complained in particular of the lack of an appropriate procedural response of the domestic authorities to an act of violence by a private party motivated by her sexual orientation.
\nThe Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. It found in particular that the minor-offence proceedings against the applicant\u2019s aggressor had not addressed the hate-crime element of the offence and had resulted in a derisory fine<\/p>\n
<\/span>Risk Return to State of Origin<\/span><\/h3>\nM.K.N. v. Sweden\u00a0The applicant complained that he had had to leave Mosul (Iraq) because he was being persecuted on account of his Christian beliefs. He further alleged that, if returned to Iraq, he would be at risk of persecution for having had a homosexual relationship, the Mujahedin having already killed his partner.The Court held that the implementation of the deportation order against the applicant would not give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. It found that, if removed to Iraq, the applicant would not be at risk as a result of the general situation in the country which was slowly improving. Furthermore, although there was evidence to show that his belonging to a vulnerable<\/p>\n
M.E. v. Sweden The applicant, an asylum seeker, submitted in particular that, if he were forced to return to Libya to apply for family reunion from there, he would be at real risk of persecution and ill-treatment, primarily because of his homosexuality but also due to previous problems with the Libyan military authorities following his arrest for smuggling illegal weapons. The Court considered that the potential violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention had now been removed and that the case had thus been resolved at national level.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Civil Unions<\/span><\/h3>\nChapin and Charpentier v. France concerned the marriage of two men conducted by the mayor of B\u00e8gles (Gironde) and subsequently declared null and void by the courts. The applicants submitted that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples amounted to a discriminatory infringement of the right to marry. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 12 (right to marriage) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Oliari and Others v. Italy \u00a0concerned the complaint by three homosexual couples that under Italian legislation they do not have the possibility to get married or enter into any other type of civil union.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect forrivate and family life) of the Convention. It considered that the legal protection available to same-sex couples in Italy \u2013 as was shown by the applicants\u2019 situation \u2013 did not only fail to provide for the core needs relevant to a couple in a stable committed relationship, but it was also not sufficiently reliable.<\/p>\n
Ratzenb\u00f6ck and Seydl v. Austria concerned the complaint by a heterosexual couple about being denied access to a registered partnership, a legal institution only available to same-sex couples. The applicants maintained that they were discriminated against based on their sex and sexual orientation.
\nThe Court held that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. It found in particular that there were no more substantial differences between marriage and registered partnership in Austria.<\/p>\n
Orlandi and Others v. Italy \u00a02017 e concerned a complaint by six same-sex couples that they had been unable to have their marriages, which they had contracted abroad, registered or recognised in any form as a union in Italy. They alleged, among other things, discrimination on the grounds of their sexuality.The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, finding that the State had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests and that there had been a violation of the couples\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n
Fedotova and Others v. Russia 2023 (Grand Chamber) This case concerned the complaint by three same-sex couples that it was impossible for them to have their relationships as couples recognised and protected by law in Russia. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, finding that the respondent State had overstepped its margin of appreciation and had failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private and family life.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Blood Donation<\/span><\/h3>\nDrelon v. France concerned, first, the collection and retention, by the French blood donation service (EFS) of personal data reflecting the applicant\u2019s presumed sexual orientation \u2013 together with the rejection of his criminal complaint for discrimination \u2013 and, second, the refusal of his offers to donate blood, together with the dismissal by the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat of his judicial review application challenging an order of 5 April 2016 which amended the selection criteria for blood donors.<\/p>\n
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention on account of the collection and retention of the personal data concerned. Addressing the first application, it considered that the collection and retention of sensitive personal data constituted an interference with\u00a0the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life. That interference had a foreseeable legal basis as the authorities\u2019 discretionary power to set up a health database for such purpose was sufficiently regulated by the then applicable Law of 6 January 1978.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Gestational Surrogacy<\/span><\/h3>\nD.B. and Others v. Switzerland concerned a same-sex couple who were registered partners and had entered into a gestational surrogacy contract in the United States under which the third applicant had been born. The applicants complained in particular that the Swiss authorities had refused to recognise the parent child relationship established by a US court between the intended father (the first applicant) and the child born through surrogacy (the third applicant).<\/p>\n
The Swiss authorities had recognised the parent child relationship between the genetic father (the second applicant) and the child. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention in respect of the applicant child and no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) in respect of the intended father and the genetic father<\/p>\n