Tag Archives: transgender

EU: Court of Justice confirms “no need of gender reassignment surgery for rectification of personal data”

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

US Supreme Court agrees to decide on state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children

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.

USA: Iowa governor signs bill striking gender identity from state civil rights law

USA: Iowa governor signs bill striking gender identity from state civil rights law

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds on Friday signed into law a bill that removes gender identity as a protected class under Iowa civil rights law.

Reynolds emphasized that the state’s “Civil Rights Code blurred the biological lines between the sexes” in an unacceptable manner and that the new law will strengthen the state’s efforts to protect women and girls.

The governor stated:

[A]cknowledg[ing] the obvious biological differences between men and women … is necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls. It is why we have men and women’s bathrooms, but not men and women’s conference rooms; girls’ and boys’ sports, but not girls’ math and boys’ math; separate men and women’s prisons, but not different laws for men and women. It is about the biological differences, and that is all.

The classes commonly protected under Iowa civil rights law are “race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or disability.” Iowa law prohibits discrimination against protected classes in schooling, housing, real estate, loaning, and employment practices. 

The new law, however, changes the statutory construction of terms relating to sex and gender, stating that an individual’s sex is to be construed as being “either [biologically] male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth.” Gender is to be construed as synonymous to sex and not as a shorthand for “gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.” Additionally, “woman” and “girl” are to be construed as referring to a female, and “man” and “boy” are to be construed as referring to a male.

The law further provides that exceptions to sex discrimination are allowed “in prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and in other contexts where health, safety, or privacy are implicated resulting in separate accommodations” because they “are substantially related to … important government objectives.”

The law also prohibits teaching “gender theory” in public and charter schools. It defines gender theory to include:

The concept that an individual who experiences distress or discomfort with the individual’s sex should identify as and live consistent with the individual’s internal sense of gender, and that an individual can delay natural puberty and develop sex characteristics of the opposite sex through the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures.

Prior to its passage, ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Mark Stringer called the bill “barbaric.” He elaborated that gender identity has been protected under Iowa civil rights law for almost two decades. He stated:

If Gov. Kim Reynolds signs this bill, Iowa will become the first state in the country to repeal protections for LGBTQ people from its state civil rights law. Iowa has been a trailblazer in advancing civil and basic human rights—from banning slavery all the way to ensuring marriage equality. In many instances, our laws have helped advance the causes of freedom and equality in our nation. It is shocking to think that Iowa may now become another first—the first to specifically single out transgender people for removal of their legal rights as enshrined in state antidiscrimination law.

The post Iowa governor signs bill striking gender identity from state civil rights law appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Trump signs executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes from women’s sports

USA: Trump signs executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes from women’s sports

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at keeping transgender women out of women’s sports by rescinding all funds from educational programs that allow transgender women to compete in women’s categories or to use women’s changing rooms.

Trump stated that the goal of this executive order is to “protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports,” citing Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and several Federal court cases including, Kansas v. U.S. Dept. of Education and Tennessee v. Cardona. Title IX states that, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This provision has brought the definition of “sex” to the forefront, as debated in both federal court cases in Kansas and Tennessee. Trump used these cases to highlight his interpretation of “Congress’ goal of protecting biological women in education.”

Some athletes celebrated the executive order, including Riley Gaines, Kaitlynn Wheeler, and Danica Patrick. Kaitlynn Wheeler stated, “this is a victory for every girl who has fought for fairness, every woman who refused to be silenced and every future athlete who deserves a level playing field.”

Trans athletes claim that the order will have detrimental effect on the trans community, including Karleigh Webb, who said, “this is part of a whole program to essentially erase transgender Americans from American life.” There are concerns that the policy will have the effect of excluding transgender women from participating in sports, with opponents claiming the policy is discriminatory.

Charlie Baker, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the “NCAA”) President, released a statement addressing the executive order:

The NCAA Board of Governors is reviewing the executive order and will take necessary steps to align NCAA policy in the coming days, subject to further guidance from the administration. The Association will continue to help foster welcoming environments on campuses for all student-athletes.

With the Olympics headed to Los Angeles in 2028, there is debate over whether trans athletes will be able to compete. The International Olympic Committee has allowed transgender athletes to participate at the Olympics since 2004, but the first trans athletes to compete were in 2021. Trump has made it clear he intends to challenge the Olympic Committee on this policy moving forward.

The post Trump signs executive order aimed at banning transgender athletes from women’s sports appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Trump restricts access to gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth

USA: Trump restricts access to gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth

US President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Tuesday 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 order requires federal health programs to exclude coverage for gender-affirming surgeries and hormone treatments for minors beginning in 2026. Key provisions include directing the Department of Health and Human Services to review and rescind its 2022 guidance on gender-affirming care; requiring medical institutions receiving federal research grants to halt providing these treatments to minors; instructing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations into potential consumer fraud related to long-term effects of these treatments; and calling for new protections for employees wishing to report on noncompliance by their colleagues.

The order also directs HHS to conduct a literature review on treatment options for transgender minors — which it refers to as “children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion” — within 90 days and tasks the Justice Department with working with Congress on legislation to create a private right of action for affected individuals.

Implementation timelines vary by agency, with initial progress reports due within 60 days.

The executive order comes amid an ongoing national debate over transgender rights and healthcare access. According to the Human Rights Campaign, transgender Americans face significant barriers to healthcare, with 22% lacking health insurance coverage and 29% reporting being denied care by medical providers due to their gender identity. Transgender youth in particular face heightened challenges – research indicates that many identify across a broad spectrum of gender identities, and have historically struggled to access appropriate medical care and support services. While public support for transgender rights grew from 25% to 62% between 2014 and 2019, transgender Americans continue to face disproportionate rates of poverty, discrimination in housing and employment, and difficulty obtaining accurate identity documents that match their gender identity.

The issues of gender-affirming care and treatment options for transgender youth featured prominently in the 2024 election season, with Trump-aligned Republicans largely disavowing the necessity of such care.

The post Trump restricts access to gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth appeared first on JURIST – News.

USA: Trump announces intent to restrict transgender rights

USA: Trump announces intent to restrict transgender rights

In his first major rally since his win at the 2024 election, Donald Trump declared his intention to restrict transgender rights when he returns to office, proclaiming that he would “stop men from participating in women’s sports”.

Trump launched numerous attacks on trans rights throughout his first term, including banning transgender individuals from serving in the military and eliminating Department of Education provisions that maintained teachers should treat students in accordance with their gender identity, among others. Trump’s staunch denial of trans rights signifies a deepening conservative backlash against trans rights prevalent in the United States.

An example of this growing backlash is the Ohio Senate’s recent approval of a bill restricting trans students access to bathrooms. There has been additional litigation in the US regarding trans participation in sports, with two transgender girls obtaining permission from US Ninth District Court of Appeals to participate in sports following the state of Arizona passing legislation that prohibits them from doing so.

With the US Supreme Court to rule on the legality of providing transgender youth with gender affirming care this upcoming year, trans rights in America, especially for youth, are particularly unstable. Many trans people have reported preparing for Trump’s second term in office under the expectation of sweeping and pointed attacks on their rights. According to a report published in 2022, only 1.6 million people in the US over the age of 13 identify as trans, which is well under 1% of the population.

This did not stop Donald Trump from spending millions on advertisements focusing on anti-trans propaganda throughout the US election. Trans rights appear to be in urgent danger of being restricted as Trump prepares to take office.

The post Trump announces intent to restrict transgender rights appeared first on JURIST – News.

UK announces indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children under 18

UK announces indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children under 18

The UK government on Wednesday placed an indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children under 18 years of age following the advice of a requested consultation by medical experts. An emergency prohibition on puberty blockers is currently in place and will expire on December 31. The emergency ban will be replaced with The Medicines (Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Analogues) (Restrictions on Private Sales and Supplies) Order 2024, which is due to come into force on January 1, 2025.

In March, the NHS restricted the prescription of puberty blockers to minors. In May, the UK government placed an emergency ban on access to puberty blockers by minors through private prescriptions, which was extended three times. The ban was based on the advice provided in Dr. Hilary Cass’ recommendations. A claim was soon brought to the UK High Court by transgender activist group TransActual, who alleged that the ban was unlawful. However, the claim failed on all grounds and the ban continued.

The targeted consultation by the independent Commission on Human Medicines built upon the findings of the Cass Review, and made the following conclusion:

This review found puberty blockers to have no statistically significant impact on gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents. [The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] found the quality of evidence for all these outcomes to be low and noted that GnRH analogues may reduce the expected increase in lumbar or femoral bone density during puberty.

The consultation also noted the Cass Review findings in April 2024, which found that:

…the use of puberty blockers in these circumstances blocks the normal rise in hormones that should occur into teenage years, and which is essential for psychosexual and other physical developmental processes such as brain and cognitive development and bone health. It also has implications for fertility, and the use of puberty blockers may also reduce psychological functioning.

The report clarified that young people who are already taking puberty-blocking medications or were prescribed those medications six months prior to June 2024 can continue to do so once their prescriber is UK-registered. Dr. Cass recommends that if puberty blockers are prescribed, they are only done “following a multi-disciplinary assessment within a research protocol”.

In terms of providing care to the LGBTQIA+ community, the government outlined a holistic approach to supporting patients affected by this ban, with eight regional mental health centers being established.

TransActual criticized Dr. Cass’s findings in October 2024, expressing concern that trans people were “specifically excluded from the review process”, and that Dr. Cass was not “as neutral as previously claimed.” The group requested transparency from the government as to how the Cass Review was commissioned, that the ban be suspended and that it instead support the British Medical Association’s “ongoing review of the [Cass] Review’s methodology and conclusions.”

The new legislation is set to be reviewed in 2027, and NHS England will be commencing further research trials into puberty blockers next year.

The post UK announces indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children under 18 appeared first on JURIST – News.

UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community

UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community

A group of UN experts urged Poland to address entrenched discrimination and violence against the LGBT community through swift legislative and social reforms on Friday. The expert’s statement follows a comprehensive country visit, between November 18 and 29, that revealed both promising progress and persistent challenges.

The UN expert’s report highlights the enduring effects of discriminatory practices, such as the symbolic but impactful “LGBT-ideology free zones” established by over 100 local councils between 2015 and 2023. Although these resolutions lacked legal status, their existence underscored systemic prejudice and exacerbated the mental health challenges faced by the LGBT community. Activism and international pressure eventually led to the abandonment of these zones, but residual effects linger.

Significant gaps remain in areas such as education, employment, and healthcare. Schools lack adequate anti-discrimination training, leaving teachers ill-equipped to combat homophobia and transphobia. In workplaces, fear of discrimination prompts many LGBT individuals to hide their identities, while transgender people face additional barriers in accessing housing and healthcare. Recent legislative proposals aim to address these issues, but implementation remains uneven.

The report also draws attention to the challenges faced by same-sex couples, whose unions are neither recognised nor protected in Poland. Two recent European Court of Human Rights rulings, Przybyszewska and others v. Poland and Formela and others v. Poland, have found a breach of the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, underscoring the need for legal recognition of same-sex unions, further pressuring the Polish government to act.

The UN Human Rights Council has mandated the UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to offer advice to States on how to remedy violence and discrimination since 2016. The visit was prompted by Poland’s recent steps to address human rights abuses, including a groundbreaking apology from the Ministry of Justice in December 2023 for the past harm caused to LGBT individuals by state actors and media. The apology marked a turning point, fostering improved access to government officials for civil society groups and signaling the possibility of legislative reform.

Encouragingly, a draft civil union bill and expanded hate crime protections are under consideration, signaling a shift toward a more inclusive legal framework. Municipal initiatives, such as Krakow’s growing Equality March, reflect changing societal attitudes, though officials acknowledge that political action has lagged behind public sentiment.

Despite these positive developments, Poland continues to rank last among European Union countries in LGBT legal protections, as highlighted in ILGA-Europe’s annual report. While amendments to the Polish Criminal Code now include sexual orientation in hate crime and speech provisions, gender identity remains excluded. Various cases of hate crime and speech, discrimination and isolation remain pertinent in Poland against the LGBT community.

As Poland grapples with its evolving role within the European Union, the UN expert emphasised the need for sustained commitment to human rights. “This moment represents an opportunity shaped by political circumstance,” the expert remarked, urging Poland to align its policies with EU standards and secure a more equitable future for all citizens.

The post UN expert urges Poland to address discrimination and violence against LGBT community appeared first on JURIST – News.

Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms

Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine on Wednesday signed a bill into law that restricts transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

Senate Bill (SB) 104 requires public school buildings and facilities to “designate each [communal] student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room” to be for “the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.” Biological sex is defined in the bill to exclude an individual’s expression of gender identity other than what is on their official birth record. The bill also prevents schools from establishing gender-neutral restrooms.

The bathroom policy, known as the Protect All Students Act, was originally introduced as House Bill (HB) 183 before it was added to SB 104. HB 183 was sponsored by State Representatives Adam Bird and Beth Lear. Representative Bird explained that the “bottom line of this legislation is to protect students” and that he doesn’t “see that as a controversial issue.”

The ACLU of Ohio, however, “strongly urge[d] Governor DeWine to veto this bill and protect the rights of privacy of LGTBQ+ Ohioans statewide.” ACLU of Ohio Policy Director Jocelyn Rosnick commented that “SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages.”

Other states have moved to pass similar legislation. In October, for instance, the Odessa City Council in Texas approved a restriction for restroom use to biological sex. On Thursday, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson also restricted the use of gendered restrooms in the House to biological sex. The decision was based on HB Resolution 1579, which prohibits members and other employees of the House from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

In January 2023, the ACLU filed a motion as an intervener in a federal lawsuit concerning an Ohio school district’s allowance of transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in late October, and the lawsuit is still ongoing.

The Senate passed SB 104 in mid-November by a 24-7 vote, sending the bill to the governor for approval. With his signature, the bill will now become law in 90 days.

The post Ohio governor signs bill restricting transgender students’ access to school restrooms appeared first on JURIST – News.

ECtHR: W.W. v Poland 11 July 2024 – Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation of Art. 8 ECHR

ECtHR: W.W. v Poland 11 July 2024 – Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation of Art. 8 ECHR

Legal summary

July 2024

W.W. v. Poland – 31842/20

Judgment 11.7.2024 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Refusal to allow transgender person to continue hormone therapy in prison: violation

Facts – The applicant is a transgender woman who at the time of lodging the application was legally recognised as a male. Her request for legal recognition was granted in 2023. Between 2013 and 2024 she served several terms of imprisonment in male prisons. In June 2018 the applicant was hospitalised after performing a bilateral orchiectomy on herself. Upon the request of the governor of the prison where she was then detained, she was examined by a medical expert who recommended that she pursue hormone replacement therapy associated with gender reassignment. The prison governor allowed the applicant to undergo such treatment.

In May 2020 the applicant was transferred to Siedlce Prison. Her request to that prison’s governor for permission to be sent the necessary medication to continue her treatment was left without examination pending a further opinion of an endocrinologist. The applicant submitted such an opinion which prescribed her hormone therapy. The applicant ran out of medication on 18 July 2020 and her hormone treatment was interrupted as of that date.

On 30 July 2020, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court indicated to the respondent Government to “administer the applicant … with the hormones prescribed by her endocrinologist … in doses prescribed, at her own expense, until otherwise decided by an endocrinologist”.

The applicant received the medication on 31 July 2020.

Law – Article 8:

(a) Interference or positive obligation – The applicant had undergone hormone replacement therapy associated with gender reassignment for nearly one and half years in two previous prisons and had been refused such therapy only when she had been transferred to Siedlce Prison. Thus, she had not complained of inaction on the part of the domestic authorities, but rather of the fact that the Siedlce Prison authorities had prevented her from continuing the treatment which she had initially been allowed to undergo. Therefore, the Court approached the case as one involving an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life.

(b) Compliance with Article 8 § 2 – The interference at issue had been “in accordance with the law” and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the applicant’s health. The remaining question was thus whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”.

The prison authorities’ decision, which had concerned access to hormone treatment, had touched upon the applicant’s freedom to define her gender identity, one of the most basic essentials of self-determination. In that regard, the Court also noted the impact of that decision on the applicant’s right to sexual self-determination; it had repeatedly held that given the numerous and painful interventions involved in gender reassignment and the level of commitment and conviction required to achieve a change in social gender role, it could not be suggested that there was anything arbitrary or capricious in the decision taken by a person to undergo such a procedure.

The applicant had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria after she had performed genital self‑mutilation and had been prescribed hormone replacement treatment, which, according to the medical reports, had had beneficial effects on her physical and mental health. The doctors who had prescribed the hormone replacement therapy had considered it to be necessary.

Therefore, the domestic authorities had had strong elements before them indicating that hormone therapy had been an appropriate medical treatment for the applicant’s state of health. That therapy had been provided to her in previous prisons and had had a beneficial effect on her. At Sieldlce Prison the treatment had been interrupted before she could be consulted. The burden that had been placed on the applicant to prove the necessity of the prescribed medical treatment by undergoing an additional consultation with an endocrinologist appeared disproportionate in the circumstances. In any event, the endocrinologist’s opinion she had submitted to the prison authorities confirming the necessity of the hormonal therapy had not resulted in her request being granted.

The Government had not referred to any detrimental effects which the therapy might have had on the applicant’s physical and mental health, nor had they maintained that allowing her to continue the therapy would have caused any technical and financial difficulties for the prison authorities. Indeed, the applicant had borne the cost of the medications herself, thus imposing no additional costs on the State. Although her hormone treatment had been interrupted only for a relatively short period, between 18 July and 31 July 2020, the applicant had submitted that since the beginning of July 2020 she had been taking half of the prescribed dose of medication. Most importantly, she had eventually received the medication, not because of a sudden change of approach on the authorities’ part, but as a consequence of the Court’s indication of interim measures under Rule 39.

Accordingly, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, including the protection of the applicant’s health and her interest to continue the hormone therapy associated with gender reassignment. In so concluding, the Court bore in mind the applicant’s particular vulnerability as an imprisoned transgender person undergoing a gender reassignment procedure, which had required enhanced protection from the authorities. The Government’s preliminary objection relating to the applicant’s victim status, which had been joined to the merits, was therefore dismissed.

Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).

Taking into account that the applicant had received the necessary medical treatment since 31 July 2020, the Court decided, unanimously, to lift the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-14358