Bulgaria – Supreme Administrative Court Confirms Discrimination by a political party against the LGBTI Community
The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria ruled on a cassation appeal by the political party ‘VMRO – Bulgarian National Movement’ against a lower court decision that found the party guilty of harassment and discrimination against members of the LGBTI community through a Facebook publication
Interesting Article: [Völkerrechtsblog] Finally, “Rainbow Jurisdiction” at the International Criminal Court?
| 14.03.2025 | by Valérie V. Suhr |
| On 23 January 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC has filed the first two applications for arrest warrants in the situation in Afghanistan. These are directed against the Supreme Leader of the Taliban, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and the Chief Justice of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, Abdul Hakim Haqqani. The Prosecutor alleges them of being criminally responsible for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds according to article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute. With this historic decision the Prosecutor for the first time explicitly included alleged crimes against sexual and gender minorities, i.e., in particular lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons. [click here to see full article] |
EU: Court of Justice confirms “no need of gender reassignment surgery for rectification of personal data”
“43 In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the Member State concerned has adopted an administrative practice whereby the exercise, by a transgender person, of their right to rectification of data relating to their gender identity, contained in a public register, is conditional upon the production of evidence of gender reassignment surgery. Such an administrative practice gives rise to a restriction of the right to rectification, which must comply with the conditions referred to in Article 23 of the GDPR, as stated in the preceding two paragraphs of the present judgment.
44 First, it must be noted that that administrative practice does not satisfy the requirement that a Member State’s law may restrict the scope of the right provided for in Article 16 of the GDPR only by means of legislative measures. Subject to verification by the referring court, Hungarian law does not appear to contain any legislative measure relating to the evidential requirements applicable to the rectification of data relating to the gender identity of persons who are listed in the asylum register.
45 Second, such an administrative practice undermines the essence of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and, in particular, the essence of the right to the integrity of the person and the right to respect for private life, referred to in Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter respectively.
46 In that regard, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed by the Charter have the same meaning and the same scope as the corresponding rights guaranteed by the ECHR, the latter constituting a minimum threshold of protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).
47 It is apparent from the settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that Article 8 ECHR, which corresponds to Article 7 of the Charter, protects a person’s gender identity, which is a constituent element and one of the most intimate aspects of their private life. Thus, that provision encompasses the right to establish details of their identity as individual human beings, which includes the right of transgender people to personal development and physical and moral integrity and to respect for and recognition of their gender identity. To that end, Article 8 imposes positive obligations on States, in addition to negative obligations to protect transgender persons against arbitrary interference by public authorities, which also entails the establishment of effective and accessible procedures guaranteeing effective respect for their right to gender identity. Furthermore, in view of the particular importance of that right, States have only limited discretion in this area (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Mirin, C‑4/23, EU:C:2024:845, paragraphs 64 and 65 and the case-law cited).
48 In that context, the European Court of Human Rights has held, inter alia, that the recognition of the gender identity of a transgender person cannot be made conditional on the completion of surgical treatment not desired by that person (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 19 January 2021, X and Y v. Romania, CE:ECHR:2021:0119JUD000214516, §§ 165 and 167 and the case-law cited).
49 Third and lastly, an administrative practice such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not, in any event, either necessary or proportionate in order to ensure the reliability and consistency of a public register, such as the asylum register, since a medical certificate, including a psychiatric diagnosis, may constitute relevant and sufficient evidence in that regard (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 6 April 2017, A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France, CE:ECHR:2017:0406JUD007988512, §§ 139 and 142).
50 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second and third questions is that Article 16 of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of exercising the right to rectification of the personal data relating to the gender identity of a natural person that are contained in a public register, that person may be required to provide relevant and sufficient evidence that may reasonably be required of that person in order to establish that those data are inaccurate. However, a Member State may not, under any circumstances, by way of an administrative practice, make the exercise of that right conditional upon the production of evidence of gender reassignment surgery.”
Source: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) – 13 March 2025 – (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 5(1)(d) – Principle of accuracy – Article 16 – Right to rectification – Article 23 – Restrictions – Data relating to gender identity – Data incorrect from the time of inclusion in a public register – Means of proof – Administrative practice of requesting proof of gender reassignment surgery )
In Case C‑247/23 [Deldits], (1)
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), made by decision of 29 March 2023, received at the Court on 18 April 2023, in the proceedings
VP v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság
USA: War heroes and a ‘gay’ plane are among images flagged for removal in Pentagon’s DEI purge
US Supreme Court agrees to decide on state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children
The Supreme Court agreed to decide on the constitutionality of state and local governments’ ban on conversion therapy in a case from Colorado on Monday. Conversion therapy refers to the effort used to convert someone’s gender identity and sexual orientation. The ban on conversion therapy has been argued by the Court of Appeals to be harmful, unsafe, and ineffective health treatment.
Kaley Chiles, a counselor, filed the case at issue. She argues that the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and freely exercise her religion. At The Court of Appeal, the justices reasoned that the law was enacted to regulate the health care profession and conduct of therapists rather than their speech. They state that the court’s precedent makes it clear that “the First Amendment does not relieve professional health care providers from their responsibility to provide treatment consistent with their fields’ standards of care.” Moreover, The Court of Appeal determined that “the First Amendment permits states to regulate the professional practice of conversion therapy.”
The Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, in opposition to the case, stated that:
In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado’s judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we’re committed to defending it,
Ultimately, by the Supreme Court approving the petition to hear this case, the court will have the opportunity to make a binding precedent that will impact the laws surrounding free speech in America and fundamentally impact the lives of LGBTQ+ American children.
Since his election, President Trump has repeatedly targeted the LGBTQ+ community. He issued an executive order directing federal agencies to restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth under age 19 and block federal funding for such treatments. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against Trump after he signed an executive order to ban transgender people from serving in the US Armed Forces.
The post US Supreme Court agrees to decide on state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children appeared first on JURIST – News.
Russia Supreme Court upholds 12-year imprisonment of transgender anti-war activist
Russian Supreme Court upheld the 12-year imprisonment of a transgender anti-war activist Mark Kislitsyn, stated Amnesty International on Wednesday. The group said convicting the activist of high treason for sending US $10 to a Ukrainian bank account “defied common sense,” urging his immediate release.
Natalia Prilutskaya, Amnesty International’s Russia researcher, reiterated that the real aim of Kislitsyn’s persecution, imprisonment and ill-treatment in detention was not to protect state security, but to “punish a committed human rights defender for his anti-war stance.”
Mark Kislitsyn is a transgender man, anti-war and LGBT activist. He was convicted for transferring $10 to a Ukrainian bank account, which the authorities alleged that the account was opened to raise funds for the Ukrainian army to fight Russia after the “special military operation” against Ukraine.
The Russian authorities regarded Kislitsyn’s actions as high treason under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article provides that “rendering financial assistance to a foreign state in activities against the security of the Russian Federation” amounts to high treason. The court sentenced Kislitsin in December 2023 to 12 years in a general regime colony with a fine of 200 thousand rubles (approximately $2,300).
The group also contended that Kislitsyn faced ill-treatment after being detained, in particular the denial of gender-affirming hormonal treatment. Kislitsyn is also facing prolonged and unjustified confinement in a punishment cell, predominantly in solitary confinement.
Solitary confinement is regulated by international law. According to Rule 45 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, “solitary confinement shall be used only in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and subject to independent review.”
In a letter written from jail, Mark Kislitsyn said, “Those who are trying to intimidate me… can do me a little harm, but no matter what they do, they cannot make me renounce my beliefs, lose my sense of belonging to my country or even ruin my mood.”
In order to eliminate criticism of the government’s actions, Russia has been using strict laws to regulate the information landscape since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Restrictive laws used for suppression of opposition, besides the well-known law on “foreign agents,” include some articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, such as article 207.3 which prohibits the “public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.” Article 280.3 also prohibits “discrediting the armed forces of the Russian Federation.”
The post Russia Supreme Court upholds 12-year imprisonment of transgender anti-war activist appeared first on JURIST – News.
Germany: Gay Men under the Nazi Regime
The Nazi regime carried out a campaign against male homosexuality and persecuted gay men between 1933 and 1945. As part of this campaign, the Nazi regime closed gay bars and meeting places, dissolved gay associations, and shuttered gay presses. The Nazi regime also arrested and tried tens of thousands of gay men using Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code. Uncovering the histories of gay men during the Nazi era was difficult for much of the twentieth century because of continued prejudice against homosexuality and the postwar German enforcement of Paragraph 175.
More: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gay-men-under-the-nazi-regime
Japan high court declares denial of same-sex marriage unconstitutional
Japan’s Nagoya High Court ruled on Friday that the country’s lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This ruling marks the fourth consecutive high court decision to declare the current government policy unconstitutional following similar verdicts in Tokyo, Fukuoka, and Sapporo.
The appellants argued that the current provisions of Japan’s Civil Code and Family Registration Act, which do not recognize same-sex marriage, violate Article 14, Paragraph 1, and Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Japanese Constitution. The appellants also sought damages of 1 million yen in accordance with Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the State Redress Act, as they were unable to marry due to the government’s failure to take necessary legislative action.
In its ruling in favor of the appellants, the court stated that same-sex relationships have existed naturally even before legal marriage, and that the societal acknowledgment of such personal relationships as legitimate is a vital legal interest tied to personal dignity, extending beyond specific legal frameworks for marriage and family.
Additionally, the court held that same-sex couples face disadvantages in various aspects of social life that cannot be resolved through civil partnership systems. These include housing-related disadvantages, such as restrictions on renting properties; financial institutions refusing to recognize same-sex partners as family members for mortgage applications; and disadvantages in accessing products and services designed for family relationships. However, the court said that although the relevant provisions are unconstitutional, the government’s failure to make legislative changes is not illegal under the State Redress Act.
This large-scale class action lawsuit, dubbed “Freedom of Marriage for All,” involves more than 30 plaintiffs and around 80 lawyers, with six lawsuits filed in five courts nationwide. This is the first class action lawsuit for same-sex marriage, as Japan remains the only Group of Seven (G7) country that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage, despite persistent lobbying from the LGBT community and its supporters.
The post Japan high court declares denial of same-sex marriage unconstitutional appeared first on JURIST – News.
Ghana lawmakers reintroduce anti-LGBTQ+ bill imposing harsh restrictions
Lawmakers in Ghana reintroduced the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a controversial and incredibly restrictive piece of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, to Parliament on Tuesday.
Presently, in Ghana, gay sex is punishable by up to three years in prison. The bill is seeking to impose harsher penalties for engaging in consensual same-sex conduct by increasing the maximum penalty up to five years. Additionally, criminalizing the “funding or sponsorship for prohibited activities” and “advocacy, support” and promotion for LGBTQ+ rights or organizations, the bill imposes a term of imprisonment between five to ten years.
Introduced in 2021 as the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanian Family Values Bill, Ghana’s parliament passed the bill on February 28, 2024. However, former President Nana Akufo-Addo declined to sign the bill into law prior to the end of his term. The former president cited legal challenges as having prompted this delay, noting his intention to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision. Cases challenging the bill were eventually dismissed in December as the presidential assent was required to review them. Nana Akufo-Addo’s term ended in January 2025, resulting in the bill expiring without enactment.
President John Mahama expressed support for the bill during the Fellowship with the Clergy event on February 28, 2025, declaring, “I, as a Christian, uphold the principle and the values that only two genders exist, man and woman, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.” Referring to a conversation with the speaker of Parliament, Mahama asserted, “The renewal of the expired Proper Family Values Bill should be a bill that is introduced by government rather than as a private members motion, and it’s my hope that that consultation would see a renewed Proper Family Values Bill.”
In an interview with Citi News on February 27, 2025, Reverend John Ntim Fordjour, opposition party MP, confirmed the bill had been resubmitted, calling upon President John Mahama to provide presidential assent for its passing. Ten lawmakers sponsored its reintroduction, including MPs Samuel Nartey George and Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah from the National Democratic Congress, Ghana’s ruling party.
NGOs and advocacy groups such as LGBT+ Rights Ghana have expressed their concern for the impact on the LGBTQ+ community, admonishing the bill’s reintroduction as being “pushed by homophobic politicians and religious groups as means to promote oppression against Queer people in Ghana.” After its passing last year, Human Rights Watch researcher Larissa Kojoué stated, “The anti-LGBT rights bill is inconsistent with Ghana’s longstanding tradition of peace, tolerance, and hospitality and flies in the face of the country’s international human rights obligations.” She further noted, “Such a law would not only further erode the rule of law in Ghana, but could also lead to further gratuitous violence against LGBT people and their allies.”
The post Ghana lawmakers reintroduce anti-LGBTQ+ bill imposing harsh restrictions appeared first on JURIST – News.
Polish Supreme Court issues landmark ruling simplifying process for changing legal gender
In a landmark ruling for trans people in Poland, the Supreme Court has issued a resolution declaring that someone wishing to change their officially recognised gender no longer needs to involve their parents in the case.
Up until now, people who wanted to change their gender have had to sue their parents to do so, even if they are adults. That practice made the process more difficult for those involved.
The new ruling has been welcomed as “groundbreaking” by the government’s equality minister. However, the very idea that someone can legally change their gender was condemned as an “ideological absurdity” by the far-right Confederation (Konfederacja) party.
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 