04 Sep Not allowing gender reassignment due to the public interest was not in accordance with the Convention

In the case of Y.T. v. Bulgaria (application no. 41701/16, 09.07.2020) the European Court of Human Rights that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned a transsexual (Y.T.) who had taken steps to change his physical appearance and whose request for (female to male) gender reassignment had been refused by the Bulgarian courts. He claimed that he had become aware of his male gender identity during adolescence and that he had lived in society as a man. 

The Court found that the judicial authorities had established that Y.T. had begun a process of gender transition, changing his physical appearance, and that his social and family identity had already been that of a male for a long time. Nonetheless, they had considered that the public interest required that the legal change of sex should not be permitted. The reasoning for their decisions referred to various arguments and was based on three essential elements. The courts expressed the conviction that gender reassignment was not possible where the individual had been born with opposing sexual physiological characteristics. Besides that, they held that an individual’s socio-psychological aspiration could not in itself be sufficient to grant a request for gender reassignment

The domestic courts also essentially considered that the public interest required that the legal change of sex should not be permitted, and had then rejected his request. However, the courts did not explain the nature of such a public interest.

 The Court identified this as rigidity in the domestic courts’ reasoning, which had placed Y.T. – for an unreasonable and continuous period – in a troubling position, in which he was liable to experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety. The domestic authorities’ refusal to grant legal recognition to Y.T.’s gender reassignment, without giving relevant and sufficient reasons, and without explaining why it had been possible to recognise identical gender reassignment in other cases, had thus constituted an unjustified interference with Y.T.’s right to respect for his private life. 

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights