This chapter examines how Article 8 ECHR has become a primary doctrinal gateway for cultural identity claims beyond religion. It traces the Court’s expanding interpretation of “private life” to include social identity, ethnic affiliation, memory, reputation, and culturally shaped ways of living, while noting that this conceptual recognition has not consistently translated into robust positive obligations. Focusing especially on Roma and travelling communities, the chapter analyzes the Court’s housing and planning jurisprudence, where the Court acknowledges minority lifestyle as integral to identity yet largely defers to national authorities through a wide margin of appreciation, often prioritizing environmental or planning interests. It then considers later developments, including Yordanova, illustrating a more contextual sensitivity to vulnerability and structural disadvantage, though still unevenly integrated with Article 14’s anti-discrimination potential. Finally, the chapter examines family-life claims involving minority traditions, such as the civil effects of Roma marriage (Muñoz Díaz), arguing that Strasbourg frequently resolves culturally sensitive disputes through narrow individual-rights reasoning rather than an explicit commitment to cultural pluralism. Overall, Article 8 offers flexible recognition but fragile, contingent protection.