Prohibition of abortion on grounds of foetal abnormality following amendments introduced by the Constitutional Court, resulting in the applicant travelling abroad for termination - Impugned proceedings directly decisive for applicant’s Art 8 rights - Lack of required foreseeability depriving applicant of the proper safeguards against arbitrariness

Ineffective investigation into allegations of forced abortions and forced contraception after rape by a doctor in a neuropsychiatric residential asylum of three intellectually disabled applicants with legal capacity - Respondent State's failure to establish and apply effectively a system protecting intellectually disabled women in psychiatric institutions against serious breaches of their integrity - Inadequate criminal legislation and lack of mechanisms to prevent such abuse

Sterilisation without consent not reaching a requisite threshold of severity in case circumstances - Decision made in context of unexpected and urgent situation, after thorough consideration by a medical panel, and driven by genuine concerns for health and safety - Failure of doctors to seek and obtain express, free and informed consent for sterilisation, as required by domestic law

The applicants, a married couple and their daughter born in Ukraine via gestational surrogacy, faced a refusal by the French Court of Appeal in 2017 to fully register the Ukrainian birth certificate, listing only the legal father-child relationship - The Court held that the intended mother could establish a legal relationship through adoption, not directly through the foreign birth certificate, in accordance with French law which does not permit gestational surrogacy - The Court found this approach did not violate the child's rights, as the adoption process provided an effective mechanism f

Violation of Article 8 (Respect for family life and private life) - Revocation of adoption while criminal proceedings for suspected child abuse were still pending - Failure adequately to investigate unauthorised disclosure of confidential information or to protect reputation and right to be presumed innocent of parent suspected of child abuse

The applicant had her pregnancy terminated due to the fetus being diagnosed with hydrocephalus - Following complications from the treatment to induce abortion, her doctor had to remove her uterus and ovaries to save her life, leaving her permanently unable to bear children -  The Court concluded that the applicant's right to private life was infringed by not involving her in the choice of medical treatment or informing her of the risks, and the State failed to provide a system for redress, thus violating Article 8

Impossibility of second-parent adoption in a same-sex couple - Government's failure to provide convincing reasons for the exclusion second-parent adoption in a same-sex couple, while allowing that possibility in an unmarried different-sex couple, deemed necessary for the protection of the family in the traditional sense or for the protection of the interests of the child, amounts to discrimination

Violation of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) and Article 8 - The case concerned three women of Roma origin who complained in particular that they had been sterilised without their full and informed consent, that the authorities’ ensuing investigation into their sterilisation had not been thorough, fair or effective and that their ethnic origin had played a decisive role in their sterilisation

The applicant claimed she suffered inhumane and degrading treatment, negative impacts on her private and family life, and discrimination based on sex and ethnic origin due to the lack of effective anti-discrimination laws in Slovakia at the time of her sterilization - The Court held that the applicant's rights under Article 3 were violated, and that the State's failure to provide sufficient legal protections for the reproductive health of Roma women violated Article 8.

Violation of Article 8 (Disclosure of information by public hospital about a pregnant minor who was seeking an abortion after being raped; Medical authorities’ failure to provide timely and unhindered access to lawful abortion to a minor who had become pregnant as a result of rape) - Violation of Article 5 (Placement of pregnant minor in juvenile shelter to prevent her from seeking abortion following rape) - Violation of Article 3 (Harassment of minor by anti-abortion activists as a result of authorities’ actions after she had sought an abortion following rape)

The allegation of a Slovak woman of Roma ethnic origin that she had
been the victim of forced sterilisation - A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) - A violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

Violation of Article 14 (discrimination) - Inability of father of a child born out of wedlock to obtain joint custody without the mother’s consent - The applicant had been treated differently from mothers or from married or divorced fathers in that he had required his former partner's consent to joint custody

Refusal to grant approval for the purposes of adoption, on the ground of the applicant’s lifestyle as a lesbian living with another woman - The Court considered that the reference to the applicant's homosexuality had been, if not explicit, at least implicit, and that the influence of the applicant’s avowed homosexuality on the assessment of her application had been established and, having regard to the foregoing, had been a decisive factor in the decision to refuse her authorisation to adopt - The domestic authorities had made a distinction based on considerations regarding her sexual orien

Violation of Article 14 (discrimination) - Placement of children with father, as the mother was a Jehovah’s Witness -  The appeal court had treated the parents differently on the basis of the applicant’s religion, on the strength of a harsh analysis of the educational principles allegedly imposed by the religion

The case concerned the couple’s complaint that they had not been able to recover embryos that had been seized by the prosecuting authorities in 2009 and that they had been prevented from having another child - Violation of Article 8 (preventing the applicants from retrieving their embryos as ordered by the High Court of Cassation constituted an interference with their right to respect for their private life)