In April, the Court issued its judgment in M.E. v Sweden, striking the case from its list. I wrote about the case here, criticising the Court for continuing to 'dodge' the question of whether returning a gay man or lesbian to a state outside of the Council of Europe that criminalizes homosexual sexual acts amounts to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In May, the Court issued a ground-breaking judgment in Identoba and Others v Georgia. I wrote about the judgment being a historic step forward for gay and lesbian human rights because the Court recognised, for the first time, that violent and abusive treatment of individuals assembling in public to peacefully demonstrate about issues relating to sexual orientation amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In July, the Court issued a further ground-breaking judgment, in Oliari and Others v Italy, in which it found, for the first time, that the inability of same-sex couples to gain some form of legal recognition of their relationships other than marriage, in a country which only offers marriage to different-sex couples, amounts to a violation of the Convention. Simultaneously, the Court rejected the applicants' complaint that their inability to marry was a violation of the Convention. I wrote about the judgment being a significant development in the Court's case law, going beyond the judgment in Vallianatos and Others v Greece - in which the Grand Chamber of the Court found that making 'civil unions' available to different-sex couples but not to same-sex couples amounted to a violation of the Convention - and setting the strong precedent that Council of Europe states that fail to provide same-sex couples with some form of legal recognition (other than marriage) may be in violation of positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. However, in my view, the Court's decision to declare the Article 12 complaints manifestly ill-founded sent a very strong message that it has no intention of changing its position that, for all practical and effective purposes, the right to marry does not apply to same-sex partners.
In October, the Court struck the complaint in A.E. v Finland from its list. In doing so, I wrote about how it continued to 'dodge' ruling on the question of whether attempting to return a gay man or lesbian to a country that criminalises homosexual sexual acts amounts to a violation of the Convention. I detailed the history of similar complaints in the Court and asked whether the long-standing refusal to uphold complaints about Council of Europe states who seek to deport gay men and lesbians to countries that criminalise homosexual acts and, in some cases, punish them with death was 'shameful'.
May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has read, commented on, and contributed to this blog throughout the year. In the time since I started this blog in February 2013, it has had 83,150 page views and, because of that, I have been put in contact with some fantastic people around the world.
Out of interest, the statistics page shows that readers of this blog come from virtually every country in the world, but the following table shows the Top Ten page views of all time by country:
I wish everyone, most sincerely, a very happy and prosperous New Year.