In a judgement published yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights found that Russia violated the right to private and family life of a trans man and his two foster children by terminating the foster care agreement on grounds of the man’s transition. 

TGEU, ILGA-Europe, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, on behalf of nine fellow members of the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO)*, express relief over this decision.  However, we regret that the Court failed to examine and rule on an apparent discriminatory motive. 

The case concerned a Russian transgender man whose two foster children were removed from his home on account of his gender identity and transition.

Violation of the rights to private and family life

The European Court of Human Rights addressed issues under Article 8 regarding family life. The case involved the termination of custody and a foster care agreement of a trans man (and his husband) caring for two children, due to his diagnosis of “transsexualism” and change of gender identity. The Russian authorities primarily based their decision on the fact that under Russian law it is impossible for same-sex couples to be foster parents. Also, they cited societal traditions and mentality for the interference. The European Court however criticised that the overall family situation was not examined in full,  nor were the conclusions of investigating authorities considered.

The Court criticised the lack of an individualised expert examination or scientific study on the impact of gender identity changes on children’s psychological health and development. Additionally, the assessment was not balanced or reasonable regarding the competing interests involved. The Court also concluded that under Article 34 ECHR, the applicant had standing to represent the children’s interests because, at the time the application was filed, social services that were meant to be safeguarding the children’s interests were responsible for the wrongful actions in the first place. The Russian government denied this. 

A question of discrimination?

The applicant also alleged a violation of his right to non-discrimination, as protected by Article 14 ECHR. Unfortunately, the Court did not consider it necessary to explore this argument and concluded that the finding of a violation of Article 8 ECHR was sufficient. However,  Russian authorities terminated the applicant’s custody exclusively on account of the gender identity of the trans man and his decision to transition, as chamber member Judge Serghides rightly pointed out in a partly dissenting opinion to the judgement. Therefore, it is incomprehensible why the complaint under Article 14 ECHR (non-discrimination) combined with Article 8 ECHR was not fully investigated. This is a missed opportunity to develop jurisprudence on Article 14.  

TGEU, ILGA-Europe, and TLDP as well as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, on behalf of 10 INCLO members, have respectively submitted comments in the case at the time. 

What this means for trans foster parents and their families

Russia left the Council of Europe on 16 September 2022. Therefore, the country is no longer bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, cases that were pending at that point are still heard by the European Court of Human Rights.

Technically, Russia is still bound to implement cases that are dated before Russia left the Council of Europe. However, in practice it is highly unlikely that trans people in Russia will benefit from the judgement as Russian authorities tend to ignore judgements from the ECtHR, even more so if they relate to LGBTI people. 

However, since the judgement is also relevant for the remaining member states, trans foster parents and their families in 46 States of Europe can refer to this judgement.

*The endorsing INCLO members are: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA); Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS); Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad (Dejusticia); Human Rights Law Network (HRLN); Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU); Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL); Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC); KontraS (Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence); Legal Resources Centre (LRC).

More info

• Savinovskikh v Russia judgement from 09 July 2024
• TGEU, ILGA-E and TLDP submitted joint comments in the case in 2021
• Case description on the ECtHR page
• 10 INCLO members submitted joint comments

TGEU, ILGA-Europe, Bilitis, and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee welcome the European Court of Human Rights’ confirmation of Bulgaria’s obligation to provide for reliable legal gender recognition. However, we  regret that the Court found the individual complaint to be inadmissible.

On 4 July 2024, the Court published its decision on the revision of the Y.T. v Bulgaria case, which was originally decided in 2020.  While the Court concluded that the applicant had failed to inform the Court at the time of his success in obtaining legal gender recognition from another Bulgarian court and therefore retroactively found the case to be inadmissible, it still emphasised that Bulgaria is obliged to set up a robust legal framework for legal gender recognition (LGR), as confirmed in the later case of P.H. v Bulgaria (2022).

It is important to point out that the applicant had followed the rules and exhausted all domestic remedies in one set of proceedings and he was unable to obtain LGR.  Considering the importance of having his identity documents match his gender identity, in the circumstances where timely remedy from the Court was not clear, the applicant then resorted to seeking LGR through other courts.  While the applicant eventually successfully achieved LGR, the overall process proved that there is a lack of a quick, transparent and accessible procedure in Bulgaria.

The Court also indirectly criticised a decision from the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation that effectively bans legal gender recognition for anyone in the country. 

Member of the jury, Judge Šimáčková issued a remarkable dissenting opinion. She focused on both the human impact on the individual and the systemic failings of the Bulgarian government to remedy the situation. 

TGEU, ILGA-Europe, Bilitis, and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee jointly intervened in the case at the time and informed Council of Europe supervision authorities of the systemic failure of Bulgarian authorities to provide for legal gender recognition.

Our organisations express deep concern over Bulgarian authorities’ priorities. Instead of addressing the underlying human rights violations, the government decided to invest in having this judgement overturned. This does not change the situation at hand and does not relieve Bulgaria from its obligation to rectify it. 

The situation for trans people seeking LGR in Bulgaria is dire. 94% of trans respondents from Bulgaria said they had not changed their legal gender. Whereas, 26% would like to do so in the future. 39% said that changing legal gender was not possible in their country, according to the 3rd FRA LGBTI Survey from 2023.

In 2023, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (CoM ), the supervising authority in the case, expressed deep regret over the lack of action by the Bulgarian authorities to rapidly elaborate legislative amendments introducing a Convention-compliant procedure for legal gender recognition. Taking into account the gravity of the situation and the uncertainty faced by trans people in Bulgaria who want to obtain LGR, the CoM exceptionally requested Bulgarian authorities to consider the possibility of adopting interim measures to allow legal gender recognition.

Background

In the original case, Y.T., a trans man from Bulgaria, had challenged the inability to change his name and gender marker in Bulgaria before the Court in 2016 as a violation of his convention rights. In 2020, the ECtHR found that Bulgaria breached the applicant’s right to private life, as protected under Article 8 ECHR, and confirmed that there is no system in Bulgaria in place for adapting documents corresponding to CoE standards (quick, transparent, accessible).

Y.T. is a “leading case” as it pointed out a systematic problem. In another “repetitive” case, P.H. v Bulgaria, the Court confirmed its findings from Y.T.

In December 2023, the Bulgarian government requested a revision of the Y.T. case as the applicant had been able to receive legal gender recognition before another Bulgarian court while the European Court of Human Rights deliberated on the case. 

Four years after the original decision in Y.T., the Bulgarian government has still not implemented a process that ensures trans people have access to quick, transparent and accessible legal gender recognition procedures.

On the contrary, in February 2023, the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that legal gender recognition is not possible in the Bulgarian legal framework.

During the implementation process, no visible signs of progress or political will are detectable.

The dissenting opinion

In her remarkable dissenting opinion, Judge Šimáčková, empathises with the human cost and the systemic adverse situation for trans people in Bulgaria. She critiques an over-formalistic and rigorous assessment by her fellow judges. She points out that the applicant was in a very distressing situation and fought not only for himself but for others in a similar situation in the country. Moreover, the applicant should not have been punished for formalistic reasons that the responsible legal representative should have known. She suggests that the Court could have instead reduced the compensation awarded to the individual and reviewed the relevant legal framework, which had at first been patchy and since 2022 completely inhibiting legal gender recognition.

More info

Find out more about the original case: https://tgeu.org/third-party-intervention-in-y-t-v-bulgaria-case/ 

2024 Decision in Revision in Y.T. v Bulgaria: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-234521

2020 Original decision in Y.T. v Bulgaria (french only): Y.T. c. BULGARIE (coe.int)

Joint submission in the implementation process of Y.T. v Bulgaria: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/?i=DH-DD(2023)1015E 

Learn about the situation of trans people in Bulgaria here and here

ILGA-Europe, The International Commission of Jurists and the organisation Intersex International Europe jointly file a third-party intervention before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning the South African athlete Caster Semenya

In July 2023, in its judgment in the case of Semenya v. Switzerland, the Chamber of the third section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had ruled in favour of Caster Semenya, a South African Olympic runner, finding that Switzerland had violated her right to freedom from discrimination, taken together with her rights to respect for private life and to an effective remedy had been violated.

The case had arisen from a complaint brought to the Strasbourg Court against witzerland by Caster Semenya, a South African international-level athlete specializing in middle-distance races (800 to 3000 metres).  She had refused to comply with the “Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development – the DSD Regulations)” of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics), requiring her to reduce her natural testosterone level through hormone treatment in order to be allowed to participate in international competitions in the women’s category, since the side-effects of such treatment were not well understood.  Her failure to comply with the DSD Regulations resulted in her being barred from participation in international competitions.

Notwithstanding the July 2023 ECtHR judgment, Semenya and many other women athletes continue to be banned from competing in sports under World Athletics regulations. Later that year, the Swiss government filed a referral request to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR for a final ruling on Semenya’s case.  A hearing in the case will take place in Strasbourg on 15 May 2024.

Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ’s Africa Programme, said, “The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR will have the opportunity to consider Semenya’s complaint of human rights violations and the broader question of discrimination against athletes with hyperandrogenism, a condition characterized by higher than usual levels of testosterone, a hormone that increases muscle mass and strength. Under World Athletics regulations women like Semenya, who have naturally occurring higher testosterone levels associated with Differences of Sex Development (DSD), are barred from competing – unless they subject themselves to medically unnecessary interventions to reduce their testosterone levels and conform to an arbitrary and subjective standard of femininity.”

Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe), ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) filed a joint submission before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to assist the Grand Chamber in its determination of the case. The joint submission focuses on the place of intersex athletes in competitive sports and sporting fairness for all athletes. The submission analyses World Athletics’ constantly evolving rules, which – due to their strict prerequisites – effectively limit and/or prevent the participation of intersex athletes in international sporting competitions.  Even though new regulations were issued in 2021 and again in 2023, the submission deals in chief with the 2018 regulations as these are the ones being contested before the Court.

The submission focuses on the following issues:

•          The DSD Regulations discriminate against intersex athletes on the grounds of sex within the meaning of Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), as well as on the grounds of sex characteristics – in particular, genetic characteristics – which, in turn, fall within the protective scope of the same provision. The joint interveners have provided the Grand Chamber with a comparison between the 10 December 2021 Regulations, 31 March 2023 Regulations, and the 2018 Regulations to show that World Athletics is continually restricting access to sport for intersex and other athletes without “particularly weighty and convincing reasons” by way of justification. 

•          The 2018 DSD Regulations were less restrictive than the subsequently issued rules as they only limited participation in the following races: 400m races; 400m hurdles races; 800m races; 1500m races; one-mile races; and all other Track Events over distances between 400m and one mile, whether run alone or as part of a relay event or a Combined Event. The 2018 Regulations were nevertheless discriminatory to intersex athletes.

•          The submission expands on the wider detrimental effect of the DSD Regulations on the human rights of youth, children and intersex athletes.

•          The submission makes brief remarks on the right of access to justice and the right to an effective remedy under international law and standards, including Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dan Christian Ghattas, Executive Director of OII Europe, said, “The submission sets out that the 2018 DSD Regulations fall foul on sex characteristics as a ground for discrimination without ‘particularly weighty and convincing reasons’ by way of justification and, as a result, impermissibly discriminate against intersex athletes under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the joint submission underscores the significance of the findings in the Chamber judgment establishing sex characteristics as a prohibited ground under Article 14 of the Convention.” 

According to Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director at ILGA-Europe, “Despite claims from the World Athletics that the DSD Regulations will not prevent any women from competing in athletics, they have the effect of forcing some women with variations of sex characteristics to choose between undergoing medically unnecessary interventions to lower their testosterone levels or be precluded from participating in international sport. This is yet another example of discrimination faced by intersex athletes who are exposed to invasive medical examinations and interventions that have a dramatic impact on their ability to participate in competitions, and which may have life-long physical and psychological consequences.”

Background to the case

The 2019 regulations are the ones that are in question in the case, despite regulations also being issued in 2021 and 2023. Sports governing bodies argued that the 2019 regulations broke from the past 50 years of sex testing women athletes, a practice that was humiliating, degrading and discriminatory. However, the revised 2019 regulations still subjected women athletes to sex eligibility criteria that retain these negative, rights-abusing consequences.

Semenya unsuccessfully challenged the 2018 regulations in the Court of Arbitration for Sport based in Lausanne in April 2019. She then appealed to Switzerland’s highest court, the Federal Tribunal, which dismissed the case on grounds that sports regulations violating women’s rights cannot be struck down as inconsistent with Swiss public policy. They added that the DSD regulations were an appropriate, necessary, and proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of fairness in sport.

In its July 2023 judgment, the third section of the ECtHR found that Semenya had not been afforded sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards in Switzerland to allow her to have her complaints examined effectively, especially since her complaints concerned substantiated and credible claims of discrimination as a result of her increased testosterone level caused by differences of sex development (DSD). It followed, particularly with regard to the high personal stakes involved for Semenya – namely, participating in athletics competitions at the international level, and therefore practising her profession – that Switzerland had overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to it in the present case, which concerned discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexual characteristics requiring “very weighty reasons” by way of justification. The high stakes of the case for Semenya and the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to Switzerland should have led to a thorough institutional and procedural review, but Semenya had not been able to obtain such a review. The Court also found that the domestic remedies available to the applicant could not be considered effective in the circumstances of the case.

The 2018 DSD Regulations require a blood testosterone level below five nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six months. The 2023 DSD Regulations, in turn, impose an even lower threshold with respect to the concentration of testosterone in the serum of relevant athletes, namely, below two point five nmo/L. In comparison with the 2018 DSD Regulations, the 2023 DSD Regulations betray an even more misogynistic nature and are a fortiori discriminatory to athletes with variations of sex characteristics. Moreover, the 2023 DSD Regulations’ restricted testosterone level does not just affect intersex persons, but also endosex (i.e., non-intersex) women in general.

In November 2023, Switzerland successfully requested a referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR on the grounds inter alia that Switzerland lacked jurisdiction; that the case did not involve the application of Swiss law; that the Chamber’s ruling would require a fairly fundamental review of the system of judicial review of international arbitral awards requiring alignment with the judicial review of judgments handed down by national courts and this would run counter to the aims of international arbitration and would significantly reduce the attractiveness of this method of dispute resolution.

---

A case against Azerbaijan by a large group OF applicants who were arrested in a wave of anti-LGBTI police raids and forced to undergo medical examinations has been struck out by the European Court of Human Rights

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights decided to strike out A. v Azerbaijan and 23 other applications. The case involved a wave of police raids in Baku in September 2017 that led to the arrest, ill-treatment and forced medical examinations in detention of members of the LGBTI community.

In its decision, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications given the Government’s unilateral declaration made in 2019, according to which it acknowledged that “there was a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed in the Convention” and offered to pay compensation to the applicants.

The applicants expressed deep dissatisfaction with this declaration, saying the Government’s acknowledgement lacks specificity regarding the nature and extent of the violations; the Government gave no undertaking for general measures to prevent future violations and there are no necessary provisions under domestic law for holding the perpetrators of those acts of violence accountable. This is particularly problematic as those groups kept being targeted subsequent to the 2017 arrests, in view of their perceived SOGIESC.

According to Leyla Osmanova, a victim of 2017 arrests, “The world saw it, the world knew about it. We were tortured, literally. Even a million dollars cannot cover the cost of psychological trauma, as I continue to live in fear. Although I am in a safe place now, that psychological trauma ruined my life. The court process took a long time, the decision is just a mere decision, the compensation is ridiculous.”

She added: “This event made me long for my native country. I have lost faith not in the country, but in the police and laws there.”

ILGA-Europe together with Civil Rights Defenders and REDRESS had submitted a third-party intervention in the case. Azerbaijan currently sits at the bottom of the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map, which ranks all 49 European countries on a scale between 0% (gross violations of human rights, discrimination) and 100% (respect of human rights, full equality).

In order to focus our strategic litigation efforts across Europe to fully protect and advance LGBTI rights, with this inventory ILGA-Europe wants to support members and partners across the region to identify trends and gaps in protection at the European level, which can commonly be tackled through litigation. The inventory can further strengthen cooperation and help guide our work and efforts by others in bringing forward and supporting strategic cases.

This inventory and continuous assessment of the European landscape informs ILGA-Europe’s ongoing engagement in strategic litigation through identification and support of strategic opportunities.

This inventory covers relevant SOGIESC cases from 2010 up until December 2023.

Two successful European Court cases brought against Russia underline state obligations to protect LGBTI community from violent counter demonstrators and general hate motivated violence.

ILGA-Europe welcome yesterday’s judgments from the European Court of Human Rights in Romanov and Others v Russia and Lapunov v Russia. Romanov and Others v Russia concerned Russia’s failure to prevent and protect LGBTI community members from homophobic violence during peaceful demonstrations and ensure effective investigation. The applicant in Lapunov v Russia was one of the victims of the “anti-gay purges” that took place in Chechnya in 2016-2017, having been detained and tortured in March 2017.

According to ILGA-Europe’s Head of Litigation, Arpi Avetisyan, “These cases are of great significance for the recognition of the rights of LGBTI people that have suffered by inaction or actual infliction of violence by state agents.

“Importantly, the Court observed that even when investigations were initiated, the homophobic nature of the attacks was rejected by the authorities, therefore could not be considered as effective.”

The Court found that physical and phycological treatment suffered by Mr Lapunov in Chechnya amounted to discriminatory torture under the European Convention of Human Rights. Furthermore, the authorities failed to carry out effective and meaningful investigation to uncover violence based on sexual orientation, despite all the evidence provided.

Russian LGBTI organisations, who worked to support both cases before the Court, note that although Russia has left the Council of Europe and is not party to the European Convention since March 2016, it is unlikely to implement these judgments. They are however symbolically important for persecuted people in Russia, as they give hope and a sense of support from the international community. It is crucial that state-sponsored homophobia does not go unnoticed. 

Avetisyan concluded: “These cases are another affirmation by the Court on Council of Europe member state obligations to protect LGBTI community from violent counter demonstrators and general hate motivated violence, and to ensure timely and effective investigations in such cases.”

European court has found that Romania breached the right to respect for the family life of 21 same-sex Romanian couples by failing to recognise their relationships.

In a ruling released today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Romania violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family right) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

21 same-sex couples lodged over two dozen complaints to the ECHR between 2019 and 2020 arguing that, because Romania does not recognise any type of same-sex union, it was impossible for them to legally safeguard their relationships. The couples, born between 1967 and 1996, were all of Romanian nationality and currently live in various parts of the country.

The couples turned to the European court since local authorities had refused their demands. After living together for different lengths of time, the couples gave notice to the local registry offices of their intention to marry. All requests were rejected because according to the Romanian Civil code “marriage is concluded between a man and a woman” and same-sex marriage is prohibited.

In its ruling, the ECHR reiterated that Council of Europe member states are required to provide a legal framework that protects and recognises same-sex relationships. It also referred to a previous judgment Fedotova and Others  v. Russia and remarked that states have some discretion on the form of recognition.

The court concluded its decision by noting that “none of the arguments put forward by the [Romanian] Government to justify the restriction on legal unions to heterosexual marriage could outweigh the applicants’ interest in having their relationships recognised.”

The 21 couples had declared that they were unable to access numerous rights available for married couples such as protections in property or inheritance, and other obstacles all same-sex couples in Romania face. ILGA-Europe provided third-party submissions jointly with FIDH, NELFA and ECSOL.

This May, Romania, ranked 41^st on ILGA-Europe’s annual Rainbow Map and Index. Close to its fifth anniversary, Romania has not yet implemented the landmark judgment issued by the CJEU recognising the freedom of movement of same-sex spouses in the EU.

Today, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) on the account that labelling a book of fairy tales as harmful to children solely because of LGBTI content breached the European Convention. 

Published in 2013 by the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences and written by the late lesbian writer, Neringa Dangvyde Macate, the book was entitled ‘Amber Heart’ (‘Gintarinė širdis’), and contained fairy tales aimed at nine-ten-year olds, with partial funding from the Ministry of Culture. Adapted from traditional fairy tales, ‘Amber Heart’ included characters from different ethnic groups or with intellectual disabilities and addressed issues such as stigmatisation, bullying, divorced families and emigration. Two of the six fairy tales in the book had story lines about relationships and marriages between persons of the same sex.

On the book’s publication, eight members of the Lithuanian Parliament sent a letter to the University, relaying to it concerns expressed by associations representing families about literature which “sought to instil in children the idea that marriage between persons of the same sex was a welcome phenomenon”.

The Inspectorate concluded that the two fairy tales which depicted same-sex couples did not comply with a provision in Lithuania’s ‘Minors Protection Act’, stating that any information which “expresses contempt for family values” or “encourages a different concept of marriage and creation of family than the one enshrined in the Constitution or the Civil Code” is considered as having a negative effect on minors. The Inspectorate recommended that the book be labelled with a warning that it might be harmful to children under 14 years of age.

The University’s publishing house suspended distribution of the book in March 2014. A year later distribution was resumed, with the book bearing a warning label, in line with the Inspectorate’s recommendation.

Macate lodged civil proceedings against the University, arguing that depiction of same-sex relationships could not be considered harmful for children of any age, but in 2019 the courts ultimately endorsed the measures taken against the book and dismissed her claim. In particular, the Vilnius Regional Court found that certain passages were too sexually explicit and that the way in which the fairy tales depicted a new family model raised the question of whether the applicant herself had sought to discriminate against those who held values different from her own.

In 2020, Neringa Dangvyde Macate passed away and her mother continued proceedings on her behalf, taking the case to the European Court. ILGA-Europe had intervened in this case jointly with Article 19 and Professor David Kaye (former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression). Read more about our intervention here.

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment, the European Court held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the measures against the applicant’s book had intended to limit children’s access to information depicting same-sex relationships as essentially equivalent to different-sex relationships.

In particular, it could not see how, according to the national courts and the Government, certain passages – a princess and a shoemaker’s daughter sleeping in one another’s arms after their wedding – had been sexually explicit. Nor was it convinced by the Government’s argument that the book had promoted same-sex families over others. To the contrary, the fairy tales had advocated respect for and acceptance of all members of society in a fundamental aspect of their lives, namely a committed relationship.

As a result, it concluded that restricting children’s access to such information had not pursued any aims that it could accept as legitimate.

Welcoming the judgement, ILGA-Europe’s Head of Litigation, Arpi Avetisyan said, “The Court’s message is clear: Protection of children cannot be used as an excuse for censoring information about LGBTI rights, both on the part of the authors for promoting diversity and equality, and for children to learn about acceptance of all members of the society on an equal footing. 

“This case also sends another important message, which is that all families are equal. In the Court’s own words: Promoting one type of family at the expense of another is never acceptable under the [European] Convention.”

The Court ordered Lithuania to pay 17,000 Euro to cover non-pecuniary damages and litigation costs. The funds are to be paid to the author’s mother.

Download The Amber Heart in English here.

Recognition of same-sex marriages in the context of freedom of movement in the EU through the prism of implementation of CJEU’s Coman judgment

Submitted jointly by ILGA-Europe and AIRE Centre

Find here the communicated case.

Freedom of expression, warning labels restricting artistic expression.

Submitted jointly by ILGA-Europe, Professor David Kaye, International Justice Clinic, University of California, Irvine, School of Law and ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression.

Find here the communicated case.

Recognition of same-sex marriages in the context of freedom of movement in the EU through the prism of implementation of CJEU’s Coman judgment.

Submitted jointly by AIRE Centre, ICJ and ILGA-Europe.

Find here the communicated case.

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of a trans woman in Russia who was denied access to her children because of her gender identity and transition. Read on to find out how this may benefit all trans and LGBTI parents in Europe.

For four long years, A.M. did not see her own children. This was not her decision. She was denied her right to love, care for and nurture the bond with her children because of her gender identity and her transition, after her ex-spouse obtained a court order. Now, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in her favour in a landmark judgment. This is the first time the court has found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) because of a person’s gender identity. It also found a violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life (Article 8).

A.M., the applicant in the case, is the parent of two children born in 2009 and 2012. After seven years of marriage, in 2015 she separated from her wife and began her legal gender recognition process to live in the gender she identifies with. She continued to see her children for over a year, until a district order obtained by her ex-partner cut off visitation in 2017.

The Russian courts argued that the decision to restrict the applicant’s parental rights was necessary, as contact with the trans parent would have a “negative impact on the mental health and psychological development” of her children. It also claimed that visitation could violate so-called propaganda law, which bans public statements in relation to LGBTI people in Russia.

However, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the domestic courts made their decision “in the absence of any demonstrable harm to the children,” failing to demonstrate that the restriction was justified and well-substantiated. Notably, the court found that the applicant had been discriminated based on her gender identity in comparison to other cis parents, saying that she has been “treated differently from other parents who also seek contact with their estranged children, but whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.” It also added that depriving A.M. of any contact with her children could “have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent with whom that child does not live.”

The court awarded the applicant €9,800, even though she had not asked for pecuniary compensation, concluding that “such damage cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation.”

Every fourth trans person in Europe is a parent and this judgement gives legal security to many of them. Now it has been confirmed that discrimination based on gender identity, prohibited under the European Convention, applies in parental rights cases. If you are a good parent, that’s what matters, irrespective of your gender identity

From a children’s rights perspective, when someone tries to limit parental rights for trans and LGBTI parents more broadly, the main argument used is that it is has detrimental effect on children. In other words: they say children would suffer because of their parent’s gender identity. The court has made clear that it is in the best interest of the child to have a loving parent and that to restrict visitation just because a parent is trans is not a good enough reason.

The European Court of Human Rights is the court of law of the Council of Europe, of which Russia is a member. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are binding on all Council of Europe Member States; however, Russia has ignored the rulings several times. In 2020, draft amendments to the Russian Family Code would have seriously negatively affected legal gender recognition procedures. In November these amendments were withdrawn.

“We call upon the Russian authorities to respect the court’s decision and immediately end the discrimination of trans families,” said ILGA-Europe’s Executive Director, Evelyne Paradis.

Today, in a landmark judgement strongly welcomed by TGEU and ILGA-Europe, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favour of a woman in Russia who was denied access to her children because of her gender identity and transition.

Today, in the case of A.M. and Others v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

The case concerns a trans woman from Moscow who was prevented from having contact with her children because of her gender identity and transition. The Court found that the domestic courts did not sufficiently take into account the best interest of the child when restricting the applicant’s parental rights, and observed that, contrary to the established practice, they failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment and scrutiny to evaluate a potential danger to the children’s wellbeing.

The Russian courts argued that the decision to restrict the applicant’s parental rights was necessary, as contact with the trans parent would have a “negative impact on the mental health and psychological development” of her children. The European Court however noted that the domestic courts failed to demonstrate that the restriction was justified and well-substantiated.

Reacting to the judgement, Executive Director of TGEU, Masen Davis said: “The kids are alright – there is nothing wrong with being a trans parent! Today, we celebrate this important message together with all trans families. Every fourth trans person in Europe is a parent. Today’s judgement gives legal security to many of them. We congratulate the applicant for having gone all the way to Strasbourg to defend her right to be the best possible parent to her children.”

Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe added: “Too often we are hearing the best interest of the child being abused as an argument to limit the rights of LGBTI people. We are glad to see the Court clearly rejecting such an abusive argument, and instead naming very concrete responsibilities for state authorities in ensuring the best interest of the child. Spreading hatred, misinformation and splitting loving parents from their children is not in the best interest of children.”

This is the first time the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) because of a person’s gender identity. Notably, the Court found that the applicant had been discriminated based on her gender identity in comparison to other cis parents, saying: “[the] applicant has… been treated differently from other parents who also seek contact with their estranged children, but whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.”

The Court awarded the applicant €9,800, even though she had not asked for pecuniary compensation. The Court held that “such damage cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation.”

TGEU and ILGA-Europe had submitted written comments to the case, which the Court took into consideration in its analysis. The comments presented information dispelling myths about trans parenthood, international developments recognising increased rights recognition and requirements for a “best interests of the child” standard.

“We call upon the Russian authorities to respect today’s decision and immediately end the discrimination of trans families,” Evelyne Paradis concluded.

---

Further information:

• Read more about Russia in our Rainbow Map and Annual Review. 

For further comment, contact: Ana Muñoz Padrós, ILGA-Europe: ana@ilga-europe.org, +32 493 35 60 55

On 5 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark judgement against Romania, recognising that the term spouse includes same-sex spouses under EU freedom of movement laws. Three years later, Clai Hamilton, spouse of Romanian citizen Adrian Coman, has not been granted residency yet. Now they’ve brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Here, Adrian Coman talks about the original case, and his hopes with this latest development.

When Adrian Coman and Clai Hamilton first met, they did not know that the love they’d found would ultimately change the lives of rainbow families in the European Union. In 2010, while working at the European Parliament in Belgium, Adrian married Clai, a US citizen living in Brussels. Two years later, they decided to move and settle together in Adrian’s home country of Romania.

However, the Romanian authorities chose not to follow EU laws and refused to recognise their marriage, so Clai was not able to apply for a residence permit. Almost a decade on, the situation remains the same.

“I’m sorry to say that change in Romania has always come from abroad,” Adrian Coman told us in an interview for The Frontline, ILGA-Europe’s podcast. It was a decade ago, in 2001, that Romania repealed Article 200, which criminalised homosexual relationships, after receiving pressure from the EU with whom accession talks were taking place. Since then, the one relevant LGBTI related legal change in Romania has been an amendment to the Civil Code, prohibiting same-sex marriages and partnerships, and the recognition of those if they happened abroad.

“What I see is a resistance to change,” says Adrian of his home country. “Some governments think that a majority of Romania is against anything that has to do with LGBT people, therefore resist been seen as operators of change.”

A landmark court case

In 2012 the couple turned to courts to have their marriage recognised for Clai to be able to have residence rights. Six years later, on 5 June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment in favour of Adrian and Clai. It said that the definition of ‘spouse’ in EU law on freedom of movement includes same-sex couples. EU citizens and their families have the right to travel and reside freely within the territory of Member States.

The CJEU’s judgment meant that all EU countries must treat same-sex couples in the same way as different-sex couples when they exercise freedom of movement rights.

“This was a huge achievement,” says Arpi Avetisyan, Head of Litigation at ILGA-Europe. Arpi remembers celebrating when the judgement was published. It was great news for Adrian, Clai and all rainbow families in the EU. There was a sense of happy ending, not only with the case, but also with the positive media exposure it received. Other couples in a similar situation began to tell their stories.

A rollercoaster struggle

However, it’s 2021 and Romania still has not implemented the EU judgment. Adrian and Clai’s marriage has not been recognised in the country and Clai remains unable to apply for residency.

“This case has been like a rollercoaster in a way,” says Arpi Avetisyan. “The struggle continues to ensure the judgment come a reality.”

Now, Adrian and Clai, with the help of ACCEPT , have submitted their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). “We are very optimistic,” says Adrian about the forthcoming decision. “While we never know how courts will decide, I think all the measures from the higher courts have been favourable. And it’s not surprising because I think the law [in Romania] has not been keeping up with the reality in society. We’ve only seen support and that’s the real change.

“One reason why we’ve stayed in it for so long it’s because we realised it’s no longer about the two of us. Clai and I are very lucky. We live in New York. I happen to be an American citizen at the same time, and we are here, recognised as spouses. We have the choice of not going to Romania now, of waiting… but other people don’t. We recognise the privileges that we have and we have to use them for those who are not in the same situation.”

Watch this space for the European Court of Human Rights decision on Adrian and Clai’s case, and listen to our full podcast below.

Three years ago, Adrian and his partner Clai were successful bringing their case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which judged that same-sex spouses are fully recognised as spouses under the EU freedom of movement directive.

As a result, Adrian and Clai, who is American, should have been granted a residence permit in Romania. To this day, the judgement has not been enacted by the Romanian state, and in December 2020, the couple took their case to the European Court of Human Rights to finally get their rights recognised.

We’re also joined by Arpi Avetisyan, head of litigation at ILGA-Europe, to talk about the wider implications of the latest developments in the Coman case.

Almost three years after the European Court ruled that Romania must recognise a same-sex couple under EU freedom of movement legislation, its government is yet to implement the judgement.

In June 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark judgement, recognising that same-sex spouses are also spouses under EU freedom of movement laws. Almost three years later, Romania has still not respected the judgement by granting the male spouse of a Romanian man a residence permit in Romania. Together with Romanian LGBTI oganisation ACCEPT, the couple has now taken the case to the European Court of Human Rights to address this failure of implementation of the CJEU judgement and finally get their rights recognised.

In the ground-breaking judgment of Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigr?ri and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne (Coman and Others), delivered on 5 June 2018, the CJEU clarified that the term ‘spouse’ in the EU Freedom of Movement Directive (2004/38/EC) includes same-sex spouses, and that Romanian authorities must ensure that EU law is implemented equally and duly, without discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation. In practice this means that Romania must recognise same-sex partnerships from other EU countries, and therefore needs to grant a residence permit to Adrian Coman’s partner and others in similar situations.

In line with the CJEU judgment, the right to family life of same-sex couples was reaffirmed by the Constitutional Court of Romania in July 2018, yet Romania continues to refuse to acknowledge the judgments and provide the residence permit. ACCEPT has brought this to the European Commission’s (EC) attention by submitting a complaint about a second case, similar to Coman. However, what we keep hearing from the EC is that in order to start infringement procedure, the EC would have to establish a ‘general and consistent’ non-application of EU legislation, which according to the services is difficult to establish.

According to Teodora Ion Rotaru of ACCEPT Romania: “We rely on the European Commission to ensure that member states correctly implement hard-won rights, like those enshrined by the Coman judgement. The CJUE was adamant that rights pertaining to the protection of rainbow families need to be applicable in practice, and the role of European institutions is even more important when national governments and legislatures fail to protect the rights of European citizens. Even if we now rely on the European Court of Human Rights to enforce EU law in Romania, we trust that the European Commission will step in and ensure that its role as the guardian of the treaties is fulfilled by engaging in a productive dialogue with Romanian authorities.

Arpi Avetisyan, Head of Litigation at ILGA-Europe, added: “The Coman judgment brought a long-awaited clarification on the term ‘spouse’ and established that same-sex spouses enjoy the freedom of movement on equal footing across the EU. Yet the applicants themselves continue to suffer and are unable to exercise their right, due to blatant violations by the Romanian government of its obligations under EU law. CJEU judgments are part of EU law, which has supremacy over national law and must be applied to all national acts.

“It is a very welcome step that the European Court moved ahead with the consideration of the case in timely manner. We hope that the European Commission will join the efforts to ensure that not only the applicants themselves, but other same-sex couples in a similar situation will finally see their freedom of movement and family rights protected.”

Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director with ILGA-Europe, concluded: “We are very disappointed by the fact that the EC is not acting strongly on ensuring that Romania is fully respecting the important judgement in the Coman case. It is hard to see how continuing to ignore such a public and landmark judgement three years later does not point to a systematic refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination clearly established by the CJEU. It is a sad day for the EU that the couple now is turning the ECHR to find justice.”

Background

The applicants Adrian Coman (a Romanian national) and Clai Hamilton (a US citizen) got married in 2010, in Belgium. Two years later, the couple applied to the Romanian authorities for a residence permit so that Clai could join Adrian, to live and work in Romania as the spouse of an EU citizen. This request was refused and the Romanian Consulate in Brussels also refused to transcribe their marriage certificate into the Romanian register.

The couple filed a discrimination complaint in 2013, and deliberations over which court would hear the case at first instance began. In 2015, the first hearings took place in Bucharest. The preliminary question raised by Adrian and Clai concerned Civil Code Article 277 and the constitutionality of denying recognition to married same-sex couples in Article 277(2), while Article 277(4) notes the applications of freedom of movement. On 18 December   2015, the District Court referred the case   to the Constitutional Court, for a review of the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and stayed the proceedings until delivery of a decision by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, which delivered a judgment on 5 June 2018.

---

Further information:

• Read more about the Coman case here and a Q&A here. 
• Find out more about our litigation work.

---

For further comment, contact: Ana Muñoz Padrós, ILGA-Europe: ana@ilga-europe.org, +32 493 35 60 55

Photo credits: Rudolf Costin

A baby born to two mothers, one from Gibraltar and one from Bulgaria, has become a test case at the European Court of Justice for the freedom of movement of rainbow families in the EU. Read on and find out how to join our campaign for parents without borders!

Born in the EU, Sara is the daughter of a Gibraltar-born mother and a Bulgarian mother. Under EU rules, baby Sara is a Bulgarian citizen. However, Bulgarian authorities do not believe that a child can have two mothers and have denied citizenship to Sara, putting her at risk of statelessness. The Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg will hear Baby Sara’s case on February 9. It is a unique opportunity for the court to take a stand in support of rainbow families and their right to free movement.

“If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country” said Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, in her address of the State of the Union in September 2020. However, this is not the reality for many rainbow families, and it has certainly not been the case for baby Sara and her parents so far. Through this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the chance to help make President von der Leyen’s words a reality for all families in the EU.

The story of Baby Sara’s family

Kalina* and Jane* got married in 2018 in Gibraltar, Jane’s birthplace. Kalina is from Bulgaria, a member state of the EU. Because it is part of the United Kingdom, since January 1 of this year, Gibraltar has exited the EU.

Baby Sara was born in December 2019 in Spain. Like Bulgaria, Spain is a member state of the EU. Sara’s birth certificate lists Kalina and Jane as her mothers. However, under the national laws of Spain and the UK, Sara could not become a citizen in either country. Not in Spain, because neither of her mothers have Spanish citizenship, and not in the UK, as Jane, who was born of British parentage in Gibraltar, could not transfer British citizenship to Baby Sara, who was born outside the UK.

Therefore, Kalina requested Bulgarian citizenship for their child. Bulgarian authorities rejected the application, arguing that a baby cannot have two mothers, and refused to issue a birth certificate in which the parents are two persons of the same sex. In Bulgaria, same-sex marriages are not allowed. As a result, Sara has no personal identification documents and cannot leave Spain, where the family currently lives.

In the long run, Sara is at risk of statelessness. Without documents, she will not be able to attend school. Kalina lodged a claim against Bulgarian authorities before the Administrative Court of Sofia, which in turn referred four questions to the CJEU asking for clarification. The CJEU will hold a hearing in this case on February 9 by the Grand Chamber, composed of 15 judges.

Why the court should judge in Baby Sara’s favour

“All EU citizens and their families have the right to enjoy freedom of movement,” says Arpi Avetisyan, Head of litigations at ILGA-Europe. “Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that all EU citizens and their family members have the right to move and reside freely within the EU. Through this case, the CJEU has the opportunity to clarify that parentage established in one member state must be recognised across the EU.

“In 2018, the CJEU delivered a judgement on the Coman case, saying that the definition of ‘spouse’ in EU law on freedom of movement includes same-sex couples. Therefore, “arguments on ‘constitutional identity’, namely that Bulgaria does not recognise rainbow families, cannot justify a violation of EU law.”

Severe obstacles for children

Unfortunately, Sara’s situation is not an isolated case. According to Arpi, it is representative of what many rainbow families experience across the EU. “Parents cease to exist when moving from one EU country to another, where birth certificates from another member state are not recognised. These situations create severe obstacles for children in exercising the rights to which they are entitled under European and international law. Among others, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is violated, restricting access to education, healthcare, and social security.”

The CJEU must clarify that if you are a parent in one EU country, you are a parent in every EU country. Help make this a reality by joining our #parentswithoutborders campaign!

Share this gif on your social media, with the message:

Authorities in #Bulgaria are not recognising the valid #EU birth cert of the child of a same sex couple. On Feb 9 the CJEU must clarify that if you are a parent in one EU country, you are a parent in every EU country #ParentsWithoutBorders

Click below to instantly tweet this message!

Authorities in #Bulgaria are not recognising the valid #EU birth cert of the child of a same sex…

#ParentsWithoutBorders

ctt.ac

*Names have been changed

Advocate General opinion expected on 15 April

— Arpi Avetisyan (@ArpiAvet) February 9, 2021

A judgement issued today by the European Court of Human Rights finds that the response of Croatian authorities to a hate crime against a lesbian woman was “particularly destructive of fundamental human rights”.  

In today’s judgment in Sabalic v Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on the account of Croatian authorities’ failure to respond effectively to the applicant’s allegations of the violent homophobic attack against her.  

Background

The case concerned Ms Sabali?’s allegation that the Croatian authorities’ response to a violent homophobic attack against her had been inadequate. She had been attacked in a nightclub when she had refused a man’s advances, disclosing to him that she was a lesbian. The man, known as M.M, severely beat and kicked her, while shouting ‘All of you should be killed!’ and threatening to rape her. Ms Sabali? sustained multiple injuries all over her body for which she was treated in hospital.

M.M. was convicted in minor-offence proceedings of breach of public peace and order and given a fine of 300 Croatian kunas (approximately 40 euro (EUR)). Ms Sabali?, who had not been informed of those proceedings, lodged a criminal complaint against M.M. before the State Attorney’s Office, alleging that she had been the victim of a violent hate crime and discrimination.

Although Croatia has hate crime legislation and offences based on sexual orientation are to be charged as an aggravated crime, it is generally disregarded and violent acts are considered as minor offences, as in the applicant’s case. 

ECtHR finding

The European Court found that “such a response of the domestic authorities through the minor offences proceedings is not capable of demonstrating the State’s Convention commitment to ensuring that homophobic ill-treatment does not remain ignored by the relevant authorities and to providing effective protection against acts of ill-treatment motivated by the applicant’s sexual orientation”. 

It stressed that “the sole recourse to the minor offences proceedings against [the aggressor] could be considered rather as a response that fosters a sense of impunity for the acts of violent hate crime.”  Such conduct by Croatian authorities was found to be “particularly destructive of fundamental human rights”. 

The Court’s judgment was informed by a third party intervention submitted jointly by the AIRE Centre (Advice on individual rights in Europe), ILGA-Europe, and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

Marko Jurcic, an activist at Zagreb Pride who provided victim support for the case, said: “The European Court of Human Rights has proven something we have been saying for decades: the Croatian police are failing to protect victims of homophobic and transphobic violence. Unfortunately, the practice of treating homophobic and transphobic hate crimes as misdemeanors is continuing in Croatia. In the last couple of years, three hate-crime complaints by Zagreb Pride have also been rejected by the public prosecutor because of the police misconduct.” 

According to ILGA-Europe’s Head of Litigation, Arpi Avetisyan: “Today’s judgment sends a strong signal to the Council of Europe member states to ensure effective investigation, prosecution and punishment of homophobic and transphobic violent crimes. Downplaying such crimes and letting the aggressors get away without due punishment serves as encouragement to homophobia and transphobia.”

Matthew Evans, Director of AIRE Centre on today’s judgment: “Police often fail to investigate the homophobic motive behind violence despite being a key element of the criminal porceedings. In Sabalic v Croatia, the ECHR has found that such an ‘ineffective’ response can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention”. 

---

Further information

• Download the press release from the ECtHR

• Download the third party intervention submitted jointly by the AIRE Centre, ILGA-Europe, and ICJ

• Read the news about the judgement, written by Blackstone Chambers, twho acted pro bono for the AIRE Centre, ILGA-Europe and the ICJ

• Find out more about our strategic litigation work

• Find out more about our third party interventions before the ECtHR.

Asylum

Submitted jointly by ILGA-Europe, AIRE Centre, ICJ and UKLGIG.

Find here the communicated case.

Yesterday, in the case of B. and C. v Switzerland, for the first time the European Court of Human Rights found that deportation of the applicant, a gay man, would give rise to a violation of Article 3 due to failure by the responding State to assess the risks of ill-treatment for a gay person in The Gambia, and the availability of State protection against ill-treatment emanating from non-State actors.

While the Court considered that the mere existence of laws criminalising homosexual acts in the country of destination does not render an individual’s removal to that country contrary to Article 3, it took note of widespread homophobia and discrimination against LGBTI persons in The Gambia. Here the Court relied heavily to the third-party intervention submission by ILGA-Europe, an umbrella organisation for over 600 LGBTI member organisations in Europe, alongside AIRE Centre, ICJ and ECRE.  

The Court concluded that although the laws criminalising same-sex relations may not be imposed, they are however an indication that State protection of LGBTI individuals would not be available putting the person at risk of violation of Article 3. 

According to Arpi Avetisyan, Senior Litigation Officer with ILGA-Europe: “The findings in this judgment have been long-awaited. For the first time the European Court of Human Rights established that in consideration of deportation cases, the failure of sufficiently assessing the risks of ill treatment based on one’s sexual orientation, particularly by non-state actors in a country of origin, gives rise to violation of Article 3. We welcome this judgement as a significant step forward in protecting rights of LGBTI asylum seekers and hope it will serve as a beacon of Court’s guidance on similar cases across Council of Europe.”

Recognition of trans parenthood.

Submitted jointly by ILGA-Europe, TGEU, and Bundesverband Trans*.

Find here the communicated case.

The Court made its decision on 4 April 2023, which found that it is within the State’s discretion to list a trans parent on their child’s birth certificate using a “deadname” and sex assigned at birth.