While the full text of the judgement has yet to reach me, I have seen comments made by Judge Pettiti. The protection of private life means the protection of a person's intimacy and dignity, not the protection of his baseness or the promotion of criminal immoralism. One of the most disturbing aspects is the mingling of Church and State in this judgement and comment.
Religion is founded upon assertions and beliefs, many of which are unprovable.
The moral dictates of religions are often founded upon these unproven assertions and beliefs. Until this morning's judgement, I had understood that modern Western law rests upon the burden of proof. Bringing moralism into the law and making acts criminal based upon ultimately unprovable beliefs, is, at best, a shaky foundation for the law. By using a framework of legal moralism with a dash of paternalism, the Court has taken Europe back to an age where if a ruling body has no more than a belief that something is wrong, it can impose this moral judgement upon all of its citizens. This could lead, for instance, to the criminalization of homosexuality, long ago accepted as biological fact by biologists and psychiatrists.