Article 3 and Article 8 - Authorities breaching procedural positive obligations as to enforcement of sentence for sexual assault after offender’s amnesty granted then revoked

Article 14 (+ Article 8) Discrimination/Family life - Refusal to grant applicant full parental rights and custody over her youngest child based solely or decisively on considerations regarding her sexual orientation - Decisive and discriminatory reliance on importance of male role model

Article 8 (Respect for family life/Respect for private life) - Protracted non-recognition of legal parent-child relationship between child born through gestational surrogacy abroad and intended father who was genetic father’s registered partner

A lawfully settled non-Hungarian transgender person’s request for legal gender recognition, which was refused by the authorities due to a gap in the relevant legislation in force at the material time - By not giving the applicant access to the legal gender recognition procedure, a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life 

Article 8 (Positive obligations/Respect for private life) - Refusal of national authorities to recognise male identity of transgender persons in the absence of gender reassignment surgery - Disruption of the fair balance between the general interest not clearly identified and the interests of the applicants

The applicant’s complaint that her accusations of rape had not been properly investigated and that she had been deprived of her procedural rights - A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

A transgender woman, claimed discrimination after being asked to leave a club in Turkey due to her gender identity - No violation of Article 8 (right to private life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)

Refusal by the domestic courts to grant the request by two women to delegate parental authority over their respective biological child to their partner - Manifestly ill-founded

A female married couple who had applied for medically assisted reproduction by means of artificial insemination - The application was rejected by a hospital on the grounds that “the Bioethics Law currently in force in France did not authorise such medical provision for same-sex couples” - inadmissible

Refusal to award contact rights to the applicant in respect of the child which had been born to her former partner in Belgium using assisted reproductive techniques while the two women were a couple, despite the fact that the applicant had raised the child during his early years - No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life)

Article 8 (Respect for private life) - Refusal by the authorities to authorise a change of forename prior to the completion of gender reassignment surgery

Article 8 (Positive obligations and Respect for private life) - Legal requirements for rectification of civil status for transgender persons

The investigation carried out by the Belgian authorities after the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint alleging rape and indecent assault - A violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)

Refusal of the authorities of the Ministry of Justice to bear the cost of the applicant’s gender reassignment despite medical evidence of urgently needed treatment

Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 - Refusal to grant a paternity leave to the partner of the mother

Article 8 (Respect for family life/Respect for private life) - Refusal to register same-sex marriages contracted abroad

Article 14 (Discrimination) - Different-sex couple denied access to registered partnership reserved exclusively for same-sex couples - No violation

Article 14 (Discrimination) - Discrimination between unmarried same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples in obtaining family reunification

Article 14 (Discrimination) - Refusal to grant a residence permit for family reasons to a foreign same-sex partner 

The applicant alleged that she had been a victim of a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention on account of the State’s failure to conduct a proper investigation into her allegation of rape committed against her - The applicant also complained that there had not been any effective remedies available to her as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the above breaches.