European Court of Human Rights — transgender case law

In Goodwin (2002), the Court held that the United Kingdom had violated the rights of a post-operative transgender woman by failing to provide legal recognition of her gender.

Related topics can be found in European Court — overview of transgender case law.

Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002)

In Goodwin (2002), the Court held that the United Kingdom had violated the rights of a post-operative transgender woman by failing to provide legal recognition of her gender. This judgment marked a turning point in European case law.

AP, Garçon and Nicot v France (2017)

The Court held that requiring sterilisation or irreversible medical treatment as a condition for legal gender recognition violated Article 8 (the right to respect for private life) of the ECHR.

X and Y v Romania (2021)

The Court found Romania in violation for failing to provide a clear procedure for legal gender recognition.

Practical significance

The judgments require member states of the Council of Europe to provide an accessible procedure for recognising gender identity without disproportionate medical requirements.

Earlier and later judgments

The line of case law began as early as 1992, when the Court found a violation in B. v France for the first time because a transgender woman was unable to amend her official documents. In Y.Y. v Turkey (2015), the Court held that infertility may not be a condition for authorisation of surgery. S.V. v Italy (2018) concerned the refusal to change a first name until surgery had taken place.

Limits of the protection

The Court gives states some discretion in a number of areas. In Hämäläinen v Finland (2014), it found no violation in the rule that a marriage is converted into a registered partnership following legal gender recognition; see marriage and transition. In O.H. and G.H. v Germany (2023), Germany was permitted to register a transgender man who had given birth to a child as the mother; see parenthood after transition. In Y. v France (2023), the Court held that a state is not required to introduce a neutral or third gender marker. The Court therefore requires a procedure for recognition to exist, but does not mandate self-identification. A discussion of this line of case law, from Goodwin to Y. v France, can be found at zelfidentificatie.nl, on the page about the European Court of Human Rights.

Relationship with the EU

The Court in Strasbourg is part of the Council of Europe and is distinct from the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. In recent years, the latter court has issued its own judgments on the recognition of a change of gender between member states and on the rectification of personal data; see EU policy and transgender rights. The Dutch framework is set out at Dutch Transgender Act, while the broader framework can be found under international rights.