European Court — overview of trans case law

A chronological overview: B v France (1992) — first violation found; Sheffield and Horsham v UK (1998) — no violation; Christine Goodwin v UK (2002) — turning point towards recognition; Van Kück v Germany (2003) — access to healthcare; YY v Turkey (2015) — ban on sterilisation requirements; AP, Garçon and Nicot v France (2017) — confirmation of the ban on sterilisation requirements; X and Y v Romania (2021) — right to an administrative procedure.

Landmark judgments

A chronological overview: B v France (1992) — first violation found; Sheffield and Horsham v UK (1998) — no violation; Christine Goodwin v UK (2002) — turning point towards recognition; Van Kück v Germany (2003) — access to healthcare; YY v Turkey (2015) — ban on sterilisation requirements; AP, Garçon and Nicot v France (2017) — confirmation of the ban on sterilisation requirements; X and Y v Romania (2021) — right to an administrative procedure.

Trajectory of the case law

The development of the ECtHR’s case law shows a steady expansion of the rights of transgender people under Article 8 (private life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination) of the ECHR, with limits concerning compulsory medical interventions and waiting times. The Netherlands abolished the sterilisation requirement in 2014 with the Transgender Act.

From Rees to Christine Goodwin

In Rees v the United Kingdom (1986), the Court did not yet find a violation of Article 8. It did, however, hold that the need for measures had to be kept under review in light of scientific and social developments. On 11 July 2002, the Grand Chamber reached a different conclusion in Christine Goodwin. The Court pointed to a clear and continuing international trend towards social acceptance and legal recognition. It found no overriding public interest arguing against recognition and found a violation of Article 8.

Where the Court leaves states discretion

The Court does not always rule in favour of applicants. In Hämäläinen v Finland (2014), the Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 8. A married trans woman could have her registration changed only if her marriage was converted into a registered partnership or dissolved. The Court did not consider this disproportionate. In A.P., Garçon and Nicot v France (2017), the Court rejected the requirement to prove that the change was irreversible. In the same case, it upheld the requirements of a diagnosis and a medical examination.

Recent cases and the CJEU

In Y.T. v Bulgaria (2020) and A.D. and Others v Georgia (2022), the Court found a violation because recognition was not available in practice. In Georgia, the right had existed since 1998, but no successful application was known. In 2023, two judgments found no violation. In O.H. and G.H. v Germany, a trans man who had given birth to a child was permitted to be registered as the mother; see parenthood after transition. In Y. v France, an intersex person was not granted a neutral designation on their birth certificate because the state has a margin of appreciation in this area. The Court of Justice of the European Union is a different court. It delivered the Mirin (2024), Mousse (2025) and Deldits (2025) judgments. See also the European Court and transgender rights, the Council of Europe and EU policy. transplek.nl sets out what the texts of the ECHR, UN treaties and EU directives themselves say.

Frequently asked questions