The recent initiative of a Member of Parliament of Kazakhstan to designate as “extremist” and ban an LGBTI civil society organisation, violates Kazakhstan’s human rights obligations and further affiliates it with Russia.

On 9 October 2024, Mr Rinat Zaitov, a member of the Parliament of Kazakhstan, speaking on behalf of the ruling party Amanat, formally requested the government to declare a leading LGBTI civil society organisation as extremist, which would lead to prohibition on its operation and the penalisation of its staff. This happened after a group of pro-Russian radical activists led by Bagila Baltabayeva, the leader of the Kazakhstan Union of Parents, stormed a private event organised by the feminist group Feminita for the LGBTI community in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Baltabaeva and her group attempted to enter the venue where Feminita was holding the event and disrupt it. Earlier this year, the same group pushed for the petition to ban so-called “LGBT propaganda”, the public support of which was, according to independent sources, allegedly orchestrated by Kazakh officials. At the same time, Kazakhstan has been gradually introducing scrutiny on civil society organisations which are reminiscent of so-called “foreign agents” laws.

Political influence from Russia

State-facilitated violence against civil society activists and scapegoating of LGBTI people is part of the broader set of tools that also includes so-called ‘LGBT propaganda” laws and “foreign agents” laws. Such legislative attacks against human rights defenders protecting LGBTI individuals have a negative impact on the European Union, destabilising it by supporting claims from radical political forces within the EU.

The Government of Kazakhstan must not follow the path, which Russia and its allies have chosen in recent years. We call the Government of Kazakhstan not to declare Feminita or any civil society organisation supporting LGBTI people as extremist, and to duly protect civil society organisations from attacks from third parties, as well as to focus on actual public concerns.

We call on the European Parliament to unequivocally condemn this attempt to ban legitimate human rights activism, as well as any similar initiatives to use anti-extremist legislation against human rights defenders and civil society organisations.

We call on the European Commission to ensure that it is consistent with its own principles and values when cooperating with Kazakhstan’s government and that international commitments on human rights violations are respected across the board. In the event that Feminita or any other civil society organisation supporting LGBTI people is declared ‘extremist’ in Kazakhstan, we believe the European Commission will exercise continuity and that the new sanctions framework against Russia’s destabilising actions abroad will be fairly applied in a similar manner. We specifically call the European External Action Service and the EU Delegation to inform the Government of Kazakhstan about the potential consequences of such actions.

ILGA-Europe

Outright International

LSVD⁺ – Verband Queere Vielfalt

Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation

FRI – The Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity

The Council for Global Equality

LGBT+ Denmark

On International Lesbian Day, we highlight the recent report by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, emphasising the need for targeted policies to protect lesbians from violence and discrimination across Europe

Lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women face profound challenges rooted in discrimination, violence, and systemic inequality. The recent resolution and report  adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 03 October highlights the urgent need for comprehensive policies that address these issues. Intersectional discrimination, where sexual orientation and gender intersect for LBQ women and the marginalisation that stems from that intersection, complicates the landscape of human rights that LBQ women should have access to, requiring specific actions to ensure their protection. 

The report outlines that LBQ women, including trans and intersex LBQ women, experience multiple forms of violence and harassment, which can manifest in both public and private spheres. Violence ranges from physical assaults and psychological abuse to online harassment, often targeting women who do not conform to traditional gender roles. For instance, a survey by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency highlighted that 33% of lesbian women in Europe have avoided public spaces out of fear of violence or harassment, demonstrating the pervasive atmosphere of insecurity they face.

This violence is intensified for racialised LBQ women, who navigate an additional layer of discrimination. The report notes that racial stereotypes can subject them to heightened prejudice, affecting their access to healthcare, housing, and employment. Many racialised LBQ women report feeling pressure to conform to heterosexual norms, further marginalising their identities and experiences.

The effect of anti-gender movements

The increasing influence of anti-gender movements across Europe worsens these issues, aiming to silence and delegitimise the rights of LGBTI people, particularly LBQ women. The report emphasises the need for legislative frameworks that protect human rights, asserting that all women should have equal access to the protection and support guaranteed by international conventions, such as the Istanbul Convention. The resolution calls for Member States to enact anti-discrimination laws that address not only sexual orientation but also gender identity and expression and sex characteristics, creating an inclusive environment for all.

Education challenges prejudice

Furthermore, the resolution highlights the importance of inclusive education programmes as a means of challenging prejudice. Educational institutions must serve as spaces for progress, promoting understanding of diverse identities while dismantling harmful stereotypes. By co-creating a culture of respect and inclusivity, we can work towards reducing the stigma and violence faced by LBQ women.

Comprehensive policies 

To move beyond mere visibility and call for actionable change, the resolution notes that governments must adopt comprehensive policies that protect the rights of LBQ women, ensuring that their voices are heard in legislative processes. This includes but is not limited to recognising the parental rights of same-sex couples, ensuring equitable access to healthcare, and supporting emergency shelters that cater specifically to the needs of LBQ women.

By adopting the recommendations presented in the resolution, we can create a safer and more inclusive Europe where every lesbian can live authentically and with less fear of violence or discrimination. It is crucial to transform visibility into meaningful action, ensuring that no one is overlooked in the continuous fight for equality.

ACCEPT, TGEU and ILGA-Europe welcome today’s decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)   said that the refusal of an EU Member State to recognise changes of forename and gender acquired in another Member State is contrary to the rights of EU citizens.

The case C-4/23 Mirin concerns Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi, a Romanian trans man, with dual Romanian-British citizenship. Arian began the legal process to change his legal gender and name in 2017 and was granted a gender recognition certificate by UK authorities in 2020. At that time, the UK was in the Brexit transition period and still treated as a Member State of the EU. Subsequently, Romania refused to register the name and legal gender recognition of  the applicant  obtained in the UK and demanded that he go through Romania’s judicial legal gender recognition procedure. However, the European Court of Human Rights had already found that Romania does not have a procedure for change of name and gender marker that satisfies the standards of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) of being quick, transparent and accessible. 

The Romanian court asked the EU’s top court to clarify whether EU law required Romania to recognise another Member State’s decision acknowledging the name and gender marker of the applicant or if it could enforce its own procedures for legal gender recognition. In other areas of law, EU Member States commonly recognise each other’s decisions without further procedures. As such, this case marks a pivotal moment in addressing the mutual recognition of legal gender recognition decisions across EU Member States. 

The CJEU Decision

The CJEU ruled in favour of Arian, stating that Romania must recognise the legal gender recognition granted in the UK. The Court emphasised that the refusal to acknowledge changes of forename and gender acquired in another Member State is contrary to the fundamental rights of EU citizens, particularly the principles of free movement and non-discrimination. The Court highlighted that mutual recognition of legal decisions among Member States is essential for upholding the rights of individuals within the EU, and that personal identity, including gender, is a fundamental element of one’s identity, protected under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This landmark ruling reinforces the obligation of Member States to respect and recognise the legal gender identity of individuals as granted by other EU countries.

Impact

The importance of this judgement extends beyond the applicant’s individual circumstance, and underscores the broader issue faced by trans people whose legal gender recognition in one Member State is not acknowledged elsewhere in the EU, preventing them to travel freely, live, work or study across the EU, or even to vote, as any other citizen is able to.  The judgement confirms the principle that rights legally obtained in one Member State must remain valid throughout the EU. 

Reactions

According to Arian’s legal counsel, human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu: “Today’s verdict has shown us that trans people are equal citizens of the European Union. When you have rebuilt a life in another part of the European Union because you are not welcome in your own country, it is normal to ask to be treated with dignity when interacting with the authorities in your home country.  The fact that today the Court ruled on the mutual recognition of LGR decisions, no matter how different the procedures are in the Member States, should determine Romanian authorities to also adopt a fast, transparent and accessible national procedure, as requested by existing ECHR jurisprudence.”

TGEU Expert Advisor, Richard Köhler, said: “The CJEU’s ruling in the Mirin case is a monumental victory for trans people in Europe! Arian was forced to navigate a legal nightmare, facing the prospect of conflicting passports and demands for sterilisation to match his legal gender on Romanian and UK documents. Member States must recognise each other’s decisions—this is about equality and dignity. Romania, it’s time to act: Arian deserves his passport now, and the country needs a legal framework for recognising foreign gender identities.”

ILGA-Europe’s Senior Strategic Litigation, Marie-Hélène Ludwig added: “Today’s ruling confirms that without mutual recognition of legal gender recognition from one Member State to another, the right to freedom of movement and residence is not guaranteed for trans people in the EU. It is a great victory that shows the power of strategic litigation in the EU. This judgement will have an immensely positive impact, increasing legal protection for all trans people in the EU, all the more as certain EU countries like Romania still do not provide a legal framework for legal gender recognition conforming with European Court of Human Rights’ standards.”

Romanian NGO ACCEPT is a plaintiff in the case alongside Arian. TGEU and ILGA-Europe supported ACCEPT throughout the case, and joined Arian’s legal team at the Oral Hearing before the CJEU in January 2024.

The European Court of Human Rights has found that Poland breached the right to respect for the family life of two same-sex Polish couples married abroad by failing to recognise their relationships.

ILGA-Europe, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Network of European LGBTIQ* Families Associations (NELFA), and the European Commission on Sexual Orientation Law (ECSOL) jointly welcome a ruling released today in the case of Formela and others v. Poland, in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Poland violated Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned two same-sex Polish couples who married respectively in the UK and in Denmark, and requested Polish authorities to register their marriages contracted abroad. The authorities dismissed the requests, finding that registering their marriage would be contrary to the Polish legal order which allowed only marriage between different-sex couples. This failure resulted in the applicants’ inability to regulate fundamental aspects of their daily lives: they were prevented from taking leave to care for their ill partner; could not extend health insurance to cover their partner; were treated as being unrelated in the field of taxation and could not benefit from an exemption from donation tax granted to next-of-kin or from the right to submit a joint tax declaration.

The Court decided that “by refusing to register the applicants’ marriages under any form and failing to ensure that they have a specific legal framework providing for recognition and protection, the Polish authorities have left them in a legal vacuum and have not provided for the core needs of recognition and protection of same-sex couples in a stable and committed relationship.” The Court added that none of the public interest grounds put forward by the Polish authorities could prevail over the applicants’ interest in having their respective relationships adequately recognised and protected by law.

The Court referred to its landmark judgement of December 2023 in Przybyszewska and others v. Poland finding that Poland had breached Article 8 of the Convention as it had failed to comply with its positive obligation to ensure that same-sex couples had a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their unions. 

Poland is also bound by the 2018 Court of Justice of the European Union Coman landmark ruling requiring EU Member States to treat same-sex couples in the same way as different-sex couples when they exercise freedom of movement rights in the EU.

On 27 December 2023, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, announced that a bill to legalise same-sex unions would be introduced and debated in early 2024. This bill was added to the government’s agenda on 8 July 2024. 

Annamaria Linczowska, Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Campaign Against Homophobia (KPH) in Poland said: “Today’s verdict shows once again that through lack of legal protection and recognition of same-sex couples, Poland does not meet the Council of Europe standards of human rights protection. Poland should no longer be one of the few CoE Member States that do not provide recognition for same-sex couples. This judgement is an important argument for implementation of civil unions and marriage equality in Poland. To provide a wide protection of human rights, Poland can not forget about same-sex couples and their safety.”

Read KPH’s press release here.  

According to Milena Adamczewska-Stachura, who represents the Love Does Not Exclude Association, involved in the fight towards marriage equality in Poland: “Today’s rulings are a wake-up call for the Polish government, reminding it that the unchanging, complete lack of protection for same-sex couples violates the European Convention on Human Rights. Today’s judgement is an important tool for legal practitioners who fight in the courts for transcription of foreign marriage certificates, and a small but important step towards equality.” 

ILGA-Europe, FIDH, NELFA and ECSOL submitted a joint intervention in the case. 

According to Senior Strategic Litigation Officer at ILGA-Europe, Marie-Hélène Ludwig: “Today’s judgement is another important step towards due recognition and protection of same-sex couples in Poland, whether they are married abroad or wish to legalise their unions in Poland. It is however unfortunate that the Court considered once again that it was unnecessary to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 of the Convention (non-discrimination).”

Daniel Martinović, President of NELFA, said: “We welcome today’s judgement as a powerful affirmation of the rights of same-sex couples in Poland and beyond. This ruling should serve as a beacon of hope and strength for all queer families, inspiring us to continue striving for a more inclusive and secure future where our relationships are recognised, respected, and protected.”

Helmut Graupner, Co-Coordinator of ECSOL, pointed out that “this is the second time Europe’s highest human rights court made clear that Poland is violating the European Convention of Human Rights by refusing same-gender couples formal recognition of their partnership. It should cause Poland to speedily meet European minimum human rights standards. If not going beyond them, as it had done by completely decriminalising homosexuality as early as 1932 when many other European countries like Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Norway and Finland still had a criminal total ban on consensual homosexual relations between adults.”

“Today’s European Court of Human Rights’ ruling sends a strong message to Poland and all Council of Europe member states that they must urgently address the persistent discrimination against same-sex couples and grant them equal rights with heterosexual couples’ concluded Elena Crespi, Head of the Europe Programme at FIDH. “The judgement also offers the Polish government a chance to demonstrate its commitment to implementing European court rulings, as part of its efforts to restore the rule of law and align Poland with international standards’.

Háttér Society, ILGA-Europe and TGEU welcome an opinion from the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union stating that Hungarian immigration authorities must correct the gender marker of a trans person in its national immigration registries upon request.

Today, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued an opinion on the case of Deldits (C-247/23) calling on Hungary to correct the gender marker of the applicant in the national immigration registry upon request. 

The opinion specifically relates to the case of a trans refugee in Hungary who has been denied legal gender recognition (LGR) in the asylum register since 2021. Represented by Háttér Society and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the complainant, who was granted refugee status in Hungary in 2014, has sought the rectification of his gender marker and name (as it reflected his sex at birth) on the national registry under Article 16 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

This case raises crucial questions for the CJEU: whether the GDPR mandates the rectification of the gender marker on national registries upon request, and if so, does this request require evidence? If so, does it need to include proof of surgical intervention?

Advocate General Collins stated that following Article 16 GDPR in conjunction with Article 5(1)(d) GDPR Hungarian authorities need to rectify the gender of the applicant, whose data they recorded inaccurately in the first place. He also pronounced that while evidence might be requested, proof of surgical intervention cannot be required.

This case marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for the rights of trans people in Hungary. The 2018 Constitutional Court decision and the 2020 European Court of Human Rights judgment affirmed the right of trans refugees to legal gender recognition. Nonetheless, the Hungarian legislature has not implemented the necessary changes. Hungarian citizens have not had access to LGR since May 2020, whilst refugees never had access to such recognition. 

Eszter Polgári, Director of the Legal Program at Háttér Society, emphasised the potential implications of a ruling in line with the opinion: “The preliminary ruling reflecting the Advocate General’s opinion might have an impact beyond the specific case, as a positive decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union will hopefully force the legislator to reconsider the procedure on legal gender recognition also for Hungarian citizens, and bring it in line with international human rights and EU law, including the relevant provisions of the GDPR.”

TGEU Expert Advisor, Richard Köhler, adds: “Respect and recognition matter for everyone. For many trans people it is a significant step to living fulfilling lives. The Advocate General’s opinion is a substantial move towards EU Member States finally recognising their responsibility to introduce proper legal gender recognition procedures for all trans people.”

ILGA-Europe Senior Strategic Litigation Officer, Marie-Hélène Ludwig, said: “This opinion is a significant development for the rights of trans people in the EU, including refugees, particularly in countries still deprived of any legal framework for legal gender recognition, in breach of their international obligations. We are looking forward to the judgment confirming Member States’ obligation to record correct gender markers in all national registries.”

The Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union offers independent, expert legal opinions on cases to guide the judges in making their final decisions.

The CJEU’s decision is expected at the beginning of 2025. It holds significant potential to influence the legal protections for trans people within Hungary and across the EU.

ILGA-Europe and TGEU – Trans Europe and Central Asia are providing support to Háttér Society in this case.

Amidst growing oppression, Bulgarian activists rally for LGBTI rights and call for European solidarity

Bulgaria has recently passed a draconian law banning “LGBTI propaganda” in schools, echoing similar legislation in Russia and Hungary. This has sparked widespread fear and uncertainty within the LGBTI community. To shed light on the situation, we spoke with Denitsa Lyubenova from Deystvie, an organisation at the forefront of the fight for LGBTI rights in Bulgaria.

A community in shock and resilience

When the anti-LGBTI law was swiftly passed, the shockwaves were immediate. “It happened so quickly,” Denitsa recounted. “Within just one day, everything changed. The environment in the country turned hostile almost overnight.” The sudden enactment of the law, coupled with the overwhelmingly negative media coverage, has left the community reeling. “People are scared, and there’s a deep sense of hopelessness,” she explained. Many activists, who have spent years pushing for incremental progress, now find themselves grappling with a wave of despair. “Everything we’ve fought for feels like it’s been shattered overnight,” Denitsa shared.

Despite the grim outlook, the resilience of Bulgaria’s LGBTI activists is evident. In response to the law, organisations and activists have mobilised quickly, organising protests and petitions, and rallying international support. Denitsa emphasised the critical role that international bodies like the European Parliament and the European Commission must play in exerting political pressure on the Bulgarian government.

The legal battle ahead

One of the most pressing challenges for the LGBTI community is the legal harassment they face. Denitsa’s organisation, along with others, has formed a legal team comprising 16 professionals, including university professors and community members, to strategise their fight against the law. “We’ve built a strong team to brainstorm ways to fight this law and any future ones,” she explained. This team is not just focused on challenging the current legislation but also on preparing for future legal battles.

The situation is particularly dire for organisations like Single Step, which has been targeted with threats to revoke its license to work with children. Denitsa herself has been subjected to police inquiries and investigations, a clear indication of the increasing pressure on visible LGBTI activists. “We’ve already had to visit the police several times due to investigations into our work,” she shared. Despite the severity of these threats, Denitsa remains defiant, “We’ve been threatened before, but it hasn’t stopped us, and it won’t stop us now.”

Personal toll on activists

The intensity of the situation is taking a personal toll on activists. Denitsa spoke candidly about the strain of being on the frontlines, acknowledging that the past 20 days have been particularly overwhelming. “It’s emergency time,” she said, noting that self-care has become a rare luxury. Despite the pressures, she finds solace in moments of disconnect, like escaping to the mountains, though such moments have been scarce recently. “My partner is a psychologist, which helps,” Denitsa laughed about with a hint of relief. “But the situation demands so much attention that finding time to step away has been nearly impossible.”

Overlooked aspects of the crisis

One aspect that shouldn’t be overlooked in this situation is Bulgaria’s ongoing political instability. The country has seen six elections in four years, creating an environment where far-right forces can push through conservative agendas with alarming ease. “This political instability gives far-right groups a golden opportunity to push their conservative laws and suppress civil society,” Denitsa warned. She stressed the importance of international collaboration to counteract this political crisis “We need to fight this together, on an international level, to prevent further damage.”

Call to action: Support Bulgarian LGBTI activists

Denitsa’s message to European LGBTI organisations is clear: the Bulgarian community needs your support. She urges activists across Europe to sign the petition launched by Deystvie and their partners, and to help raise awareness about the situation in Bulgaria. “We’re providing pro bono legal support to teachers and school directors who may be sanctioned under this law,” she explained. That is why financial support is also crucial, as organisations like Deystvie prepare for a prolonged legal and advocacy battle. Contributions can be made directly through their website, where details for donations are provided.

This is a critical moment for the LGBTI community in Bulgaria. While the challenges are immense, the solidarity and support from across Europe can make a significant difference. As Denitsa aptly put it, “We have to be prepared for the long run. We don’t know when this crisis will end, but we’re not giving up.”

ILGA-Europe and TGEU welcome a judgement of the Italian Constitutional Court finding that non-binary peoples’ rights are protected under the Italian Constitution

In a judgment published last week, the Italian Constitutional Court found that non-binary peoples’’ rights are protected under the principles of social identity, equality of citizens and the right to health as guaranteed by the Italian Constitution. The Court did not, however, recognise a right to be registered as non-binary in Italian civil registries. The Court also repealed the legislative provision requiring trans people to obtain a court’s authorisation prior to accessing transition-related surgery.

ILGA-Europe and Transgender Europe (TGEU) welcome this decision but regret that the Court failed to recognise a right to a third legal gender option in Italian registries and identity documents. Our organisations submitted an amicus curiae in the case, expressing that the introduction of a third legal gender option protects the rights to self-determination, dignity and private life of many trans people, intersex people and people of other gender identities. 

The decision follows a referral by a regional court on the case of a non-binary Italian citizen, raising two questions of constitutionality to the Constitutional Court. 

Missed opportunity to recognise a third legal gender option in the Italian system

The first question concerned the current lack of a third legal gender option in Italian registries and identity documents.  

The applicant argued that the failure to recognise non-binary gender identity harms individuals’ social identity (Article 2 of the Constitution) and equality before the law (Article 3 of the Constitution), since legal gender recognition  is allowed only to those whose gender identity falls within the binary. The Court also examined a violation of the fundamental right to health under Article 32 of the Constitution, and whether the lack of recognition of non-binary gender identity compromises psychophysical wellbeing. 

The Constitutional Court declared this question inadmissible, citing the wide repercussions that the introduction of a third legal gender option would have on various sectors of the legal system, which would necessitate a systemic legislative reform of the system and of the many institutions currently operating under the gender-binary logic.  

However, the Court brought this question to the attention of the legislator. It noted that the lack of a third legal gender option in the Italian system can lead to unequal treatment and/or can compromise the psychophysical wellbeing of concerned individuals, which can in turn raise issues around the respect for social dignity and protection of health under Articles 3 and 32 of the Constitution.  

The applicant, as well as ILGA-Europe and TGEU – Trans Europe and Central Asia in their third-party intervention, recalled that non-binary gender identity has now been recognised in numerous legal systems across Europe. Iceland and Germany are leading the way and Denmark and Malta partially acknowledge non-binary identities) [1]. A gender marker option in official registries and documents other than male or female (unspecified or third gender marker option) is an important issue for a growing number of people in trans and intersex communities. The EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) found that nearly every second person in the trans community identifies outside of the gender binary, that is not (entirely) identifying as male or female [2]. 

The Italian Constitutional Court ruling was highly anticipated in this respect, and it could have triggered legislative changes inspiring other countries to follow suit and potentially transforming the landscape of non-binary rights in Europe. 

Unconstitutionality of the obligation for trans and non-binary people to obtain judicial authorisation to access transition-related surgeries 

The second question concerned the obligation in Legislative Decree no. 150 of 2011 for trans and non-binary people to obtain a court decision to be authorised to access transition-related surgical interventions. 

The applicant argued that such an obligation violates the fundamental right to self-determination (Article 2 of the Constitution) and the right to equality before the law (Article 3), since requiring judicial authorisation for a medical procedure that is lawful is unreasonable. Such a requirement is also discriminatory, because other similar interventions not linked to gender identity, are left exclusively to medical judgment and to the patient’s consent.

The Court ruled that such a requirement was unconstitutional. It reiterated that for the purpose of legal gender recognition, it is necessary and sufficient to ascertain the “objective transition of gender identity” which can be accomplished through hormonal treatments and psychological-behavioural support, without a surgical intervention. As such, according to the Court, the blanket requirement for judicial authorisation before surgical interventions is manifestly unreasonable and unnecessary.  

Notably, the Constitutional Court referenced the changing jurisprudential framework in Italy on this issue, highlighting the growing Italian case-law authorising surgery at the same time as ordering legal gender recognition. 

Further to this ruling, trans and non-binary people in Italy will be able to obtain surgeries as part of their trans-specific healthcare without a judicial decision, a requirement that often led to arbitrary and lengthy procedures.  

ILGA-Europe 

TGEU (Trans Europe and Central Asia)

1.  As pointed out by the applicant, the EU itself provides standard forms containing three gender options Non-Binary gender identity is recognised under Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2016 on the free movement of citizens on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012
2.  Russell, Sanders, Watkins, Diving into the FRA LGBTI II Survey Data: Trans and non-binary briefing’, p. 3, available at: https://tgeu.org/intersecting-oppressions-trans-people-in-europe/

The European Court of Human rights has made a judgement in a case where the Latvian authorities declined to prosecute an anti-LGBTI attack as a hate-motivated offence

Earlier this month, in a case taken by the victim of a homophobic assault in Latvia, the European Court found a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to private and family life), together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 

The case concerned the attack on the applicant and his partner, a gay couple, when they were walking in Riga. The two perpetrators of the attack shouted homophobic slurs and physically assaulted the applicant. The applicant avoided further violence by fleeing into a shop and securing the door. The police and prosecutors declined to prosecute the attack on the applicant as a hate-motivated offence.

The Court found that the authorities had failed to offer adequate protection in respect of the individual applicant’s dignity and private life by ensuring effective prosecution of the attack against him, and to effectively investigate the hate motive behind the attack.

Importantly, the Court considered that “attacks on LGBTI individuals, triggered by expressions of affection constitute an affront to human dignity” so that the attack “not only undermine[d] the victims’ physical safety but also their emotional and psychological well-being, turning a moment of intimacy into one of fear and trauma.”

Furthermore, the Court ruled that such attacks “humiliate and debase the victims, conveying a message of inferiority of their identities and expressions.” As such, the case fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (inhumane and degrading treatment).

The Court also pointed out the crucial importance of addressing impunity in cases of hate crimes as “failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature.”

Welcoming the judgement, ILGA-Europe’s Senior Strategic Litigation Officer, Marie-Hélène Ludwig said: “This judgment sends a strong signal in recalling State’s positive obligations in effectively addressing hate crimes against LGBTI people in Latvia and across Council of Europe member States amidst the rise in hate incidents in a number of countries.”

The judgment can be accessed here.

On 25 July, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in M.A. and Others v. France that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

In December 2019, more than 250 sex workers took their case to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge whether the criminalisation of clients was compatible with their fundamental rights: the freedom to pursue a professional activity, the right to personal autonomy and sexual freedom, and the rights to physical integrity and life.

With its ruling that there had been no violation of Article 8, the court refused to affirm the human rights of sex workers. 

The Court nonetheless stated that national authorities have a duty to keep the approach they decided to adopt under constant supervision, especially when the approach was based on a general and absolute prohibition of the purchase of sexual acts. This, the Court said, is to ensure that the approach can be amended depending on the evolution of international standards and European society in this field, and the consequences of the implementation of this legislation.

With this joint statement, our organisations express our deep solidarity with the 261 sex workers, most of them migrants of different genders, who, despite their precarious situation, had the courage to unite and challenge the French state to oppose a law that puts their safety and health at risk.

Our organisations are leading civil society networks and human rights organisations. We have decades of experience and expertise in addressing women’s rights and gender equality, human rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights, HIV, harm reduction, the rights of LGBTI people, digital rights, human trafficking, migration, racial justice and criminal justice. All ten organisations have come to the same conclusion: the criminalisation of the purchase of sex or of any other aspect of sex work does not protect sex workers’rights. It also fails to address the root causes of the very serious issue of trafficking and forced labour. From our expertise we know that the overuse of criminal laws to solve societal problems actually harms those most vulnerable in our societies. 

Criminalisation policies hinder meaningful inclusion and consultation with sex workers and reinforce social stigma. Labelling all sex workers as victims is patronising and adds to the barriers to accessing community-led health and violence prevention programmes.

We are appalled by the fact that such policies are promoted and celebrated by some so-called feminist organisations. Carceral feminism, which sees criminal law as a tool for achieving gender equality, harms those who are most marginalised in our society and disproportionately impacted by racial profiling, police brutality and over-surveillance.

We are deeply disappointed by this decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Regardless of this judgement, our organisations stand in solidarity with sex workers and will continue to advocate for the full decriminalisation of sex work. 

It is only by adopting a human rights-based approach, decriminalising all aspects of sex work, and meaningfully including sex workers and sex workers’ human rights defenders in decision-making, that people selling sex, as well as victims of sexual exploitation, can be protected and theviolations of their rights can be addressed.

Signatories: 

Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice

ILGA-Europe 

European Sex Workers Rights Alliance (ESWA)

Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women

AIDS Action Europe

Trans Europe and Central Asia (TGEU)

IGLYO

La Strada International

PICUM

European AIDS Treatment Group

The European Court of Human Rights has found that Poland violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting the right to private and family life, when a trans woman was denied access to hormone therapy in prison

On July 11, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgement in a case concerning the refusal by Polish authorities to allow a trans woman to continue hormone replacement therapy in prison, although she had already undergone such therapy for nearly one and a half years in two previous prisons.

The Court found that the authorities had failed to justify their refusal on any reasonable grounds, and did not provide sufficient explanations as to why the treatment might have been detrimental to the applicant’s health.

To the contrary, the Court pointed out that hormone replacement therapy had beneficial effects for the applicant’s physical and mental health and that the prescribing doctors had considered it necessary and urgent for the applicant to access such care. As such, the Court concluded that the Polish authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, especially in light of the need to protect the applicant’s health as well as her interest in continuing hormone replacement therapy.

Transgender Europe (TGEU) intervened on this case. The judgement can be downloaded here. 

ILGA-Europe, TGEU and Association Mousse welcome the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming that the French national railway company, SNCF should stop collecting its passengers’ civil titles. 

The opinion concerns a case initiated by the Mousse Association, representing 64 individuals, against France’s national state-owned railway company (SNCF) practice of forcing passengers to choose between the civil titles ‘Mr’ or ‘Ms’ when purchasing train tickets. The train company does not offer a third option. 

The case relies on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’s principles of data minimisation and accuracy, as well as the fundamental EU law principle of non-discrimination. 

Yesterday, CJEU Advocate General Maciej Szpunar said that it is not “necessary” under GDPR and that it is therefore unlawful for the SNCF to collect individuals’ civil titles. The Advocate General dismissed the SNCF’s arguments that the data collection in question is necessary to adapt its commercial communication or transport services depending on the passengers’ civil titles. 

The Advocate General also agreed with Association Mousse that processing data on civil titles creates a risk of discrimination on the grounds of gender identity for trans and non-binary people notably as other States legally recognise non-binary identities.

As such, the Advocate General’s reasoning represents a positive step forward for the rights of non-binary people, but also more broadly, for LGBTI people who do not identify within the gender binary. 

As the CJEU will now deliberate on this case, our organisations hope that the judgment will align with the opinion of the Advocate General and put an end to the misgendering and discrimination faced by non-binary people who are constantly forced to choose in their everyday lives between two options that do not correspond to their identity. Also, binary trans people, whose identity documents do not match their gender identity, will benefit from fewer mandatory forms asking for a gender marker, when it is not necessary to the service or contract at hand.

Therefore, a positive judgment would set a significant precedent for the inclusion of all gender identities in many areas of life, by requiring forms without any reference to gender markers or with inclusive options. It doesn’t take anything away from anyone, but it helps marginalised communities a lot.

Almost two-thirds (64 per cent) of trans respondents felt discriminated against in the year before the survey, followed by more than half (51 per cent) of non-binary and gender-diverse respondents, where every second respondent experienced discrimination in the same period, found the EU Fundamental Rights Agency LGBTI survey 2023. The same survey also found that 15 per cent of non-binary and 35 per cent of trans people said they experienced discrimination when they had to show their ID. In contrast, only 1% of cisgender endosex respondents reported such issues. Non-binary people make up the largest compound (65 per cent) of the trans community

ILGA-Europe and TGEU are providing support to Association Mousse and its lawyers, Etienne Deshoulières from Deshoulières Avocats and Johan Heymans, Yasmina El Kaddouri and Delphine Holemans from VS Advocaten, in this case.

ILGA-Europe

TGEU (Trans Europe and Central Asia)

Association Mousse

VS Advocaten

Read the Advocate General’s opinion here. 

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

The following open letter has been jointly sent to the German government by ILGA-Europe, the European Network Against Racism, European Disability Forum and Age Platform Europe.

Dear Chancellor Scholz,

We are writing to you today as a coalition of European NGO networks working on equality and non-discrimination, representing thousands of organisations of LGBTI people, people with disabilities, racialised people, the young and older people. Together with many other human rights organisations we are very concerned  that while a large majority of EU Member States supported the efforts of the Belgian Presidency to finally ensure that the EU’s draft Equal Treatment Directive (2008/0140(CNS)) gets adopted after 14 years of stalling in the Council, it was yet again your government that blocked any progress by not lifting the general reservation.

Considering your strong commitment to advancing equal rights, as well as a clear passage in the coalition agreement that commits to supporting the broadening of anti-discrimination legislation on EU level to include LGBTI people (Überschrift Queeres Leben S.95 des Koalitionsvertrags: „Rechtsakte der EU, die gegen Diskriminierung aufgrund von Rassismus gelten, müssen künftig auch Homophobie und andere Diskriminierung umfasse“), the ongoing general reservation of your Government is cause for concern. Lifting your Government’s blockage would also be an important step to protect older persons from discrimination, another commitment made in the coalition agreement (Überschrift Senioren: “Wir werden ältere Menschen vor Diskriminierung und vor finanzieller Ausbeutung– insb. durch Vorsorgevollmachten – schützen“).

This directive, which represents one step towards more equality, has not reached agreement in the Council for 14 years now. One major blocking stone of any negotiation between Member States has been the general reservation of Germany. In 2024, people living in the EU, especially those at the intersections of inequalities are still not equally protected by law when they experience discrimination in all spheres of life because of their age, gender/sex, belief or religion, sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin. For the moment, across the EU, there is a patchwork of unequal protection, with negative consequences for individuals, businesses and Member States themselves. At a time when acts of racism,  xenophobia, LGBTI-phobia and sexism are on the rise across the EU, this absence of legislative action towards more equality by EU Member States is highly problematic.

What is more, the results of the European elections on 9^th June 2024, have shown quite clearly that in many EU Member States the far-right is on the rise and upcoming national elections might further shift the majorities in the Council. Laws and policies are too often the last line of defence for minorities in our societies. In a social and political context which is increasingly polarised and makes them particularly vulnerable this is further exacerbated. However, there still is a window of opportunity now to finally adopt the Equal Treatment Directive which might close very soon if the governments of more Member States shift to the right.

Amid a surge in far-right political parties gaining seats in the new European Parliament, with gains also at national level expected, the new compositions of the European Parliament and Council will have serious consequences on EU decision making. This is a critical time for the EU and its Member States to fulfil their obligations to ensure that better protection against discrimination in all areas of live is put down in law on EU level, adding to the protection of EU fundamental rights.

For over a decade now, people across the EU hear again and again that Germany could not lift its general reservation due to disagreements in the government. Your Government has clearly committed to furthering equality and non-discrimination in Germany, at the EU level and the United Nations. After the elections in Poland, the Polish Government has changed its position on the directive, and made a very clear statement in the EPSCO on the 20 June that they want to adopt the directive as soon as possible, as did many other Member States. In the final weeks of the Belgian Presidency, the German Government has a unique opportunity to put the commitment of its coalition agreement finally into action.  

We therefore urge your Government to lift the general reservation as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

ILGA-Europe

European Network Against Racism

European Disability Forum Age Platform Europe

ILGA-Europe, TGEU, OII Europe, IGLYO and EL*C jointly welcome the inclusion of SOGIGESC grounds in new EU Directive on minimum standards for equality bodies

On 7 May 2024, two new directives on minimum standards for equality bodies were officially adopted by the EU. One of the directives includes in its recitals and articles the grounds of gender expression, gender identity and sex characteristics in addition to sexual orientation. This marks the first time sex characteristics have been mentioned explicitly in an EU directive, and the second time gender identity and gender expression have been mentioned in an EU directive.¹ This is an important milestone for the protection of LGBTI people in EU legislation, and follows two years of joint advocacy on these directives by OII Europe, TGEU, ILGA-Europe, EL*C and IGLYO.

The two new directives amend existing EU laws in order to add provisions to strengthen the role and independence of equality bodies in the EU, setting minimum standards regarding their mandates, tasks, independence, structure, powers, accessibility and resources. Both directives are subject to EU primary law including the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). Article 19 TFEU and Article 21 CFR include sexual orientation in the list of protected grounds against discrimination, therefore both new directives cover the grounds of sexual orientation as regards the mandates of equality bodies in the EU.

However, we need to go beyond this to properly address the reality of discrimination. Limiting equality bodies’ mandates to working only on the grounds of discrimination explicitly named in the EU treaties means that many causes of discrimination are left out, remaining unrecognised and therefore not properly addressed. In the case of LGBTI people, who face discrimination based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics (or a combination of these grounds), not including gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics in the mandates of equality bodies means that equality bodies cannot properly address discrimination faced by trans and intersex people. In a time when discrimination against LGBTI people is on the rise, this is a welcome move.

Together, OII Europe, TGEU, ILGA-Europe, EL*C and IGLYO advocated for references to the grounds of gender expression, gender identity and sex characteristics to be included in both new directives.

Directive 2022/0401 amends directives in the field of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation between persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and men in matters of social security and the access to and supply of goods and services. This new directive required unanimous agreement in the EU Council. Despite references to gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics being included in the text proposed by the European Parliament, due to opposition from a small number of EU countries, these references did not make it into the final text.

However, for the second Directive, the references did make it into the final agreed text. Directive 2022/0400 amends existing Directives 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU which cover the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, including self-employment. This directive required qualified majority voting in the EU Council. Therefore, the references to the grounds of gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics were included in the adopted text, in the context of the definition of a victim of discrimination:

Recital 23

“In addition to prevention, a central task of equality bodies is to provide assistance to victims of discrimination. Victims should be understood to encompass all persons who consider that they have experienced discrimination as referred to in Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC or in Article 4 of Directive 2010/41/EU, irrespective, for example, of their socio-economic status, political opinion, age, health, nationality, residence status, language, colour, level of literacy, gender, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics.”

Article 6

“Member States shall ensure that equality bodies are able to provide assistance to victims as set out in paragraphs 2 to 4. For the purposes of this Directive, ‘victims’ mean all persons, irrespective, for example, of their socio-economic status, political opinion, age, health, nationality, residence status, language, colour, level of literacy, gender, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics, who consider that they have experienced discrimination within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC or Article 4 of Directive 2010/41/EU.”

What’s next?

This achievement marks a milestone in the recognition of trans and intersex people in EU legislation and policy-making, and will contribute to further protection against discrimination for LGBTI people by equality bodies across the EU. We also extend our thanks to Equinet, the European Network of Equality Bodies, which led a successful campaign on these directives and supported our calls for the inclusion of the grounds of gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics, based on the reality of discrimination against LGBTI people in the EU, as well as existing EU policy, legislation, and decisions of the EU Court of Justice. We will now work together with relevant authorities on the effective transposition of the equality bodies directives and we will continue to advocate for more comprehensive protection for LGBTI people in EU policy and legislation.

1. The first mention was in the Victims’ Rights Directive, 2012/29 ↩︎

The Court of Justice of the European Union held a significant hearing today concerning legal gender recognition for trans people in Hungary

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard the case Deldits (C-247/23), which involves a trans refugee in Hungary who has been denied legal gender recognition (LGR) since 2021. Represented by Háttér Society and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the complainant, who was granted refugee status Hungary in 2014, has sought judicial review under Article 16 of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

This case raises crucial questions for the CJEU: whether GDPR mandates the rectification of personal data, including gender marker, upon request; what evidence is necessary to support such requests; and whether medical or surgical interventions must be proven.

In addition to the European Commission and advocacy groups, the governments of Hungary, France, Spain and the Netherlands participated in today’s hearing, highlighting its broader implications for LGR in Hungary.

The Budapest-Capital Regional Court’s referral to the CJEU marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for trans rights in Hungary. Despite the 2018 Constitutional Court decision and the 2020 European Court of Human Rights judgement affirming these rights, the Hungarian legislature has yet to implement necessary changes. LGR for both refugees and Hungarian citizens has been banned since 2020.

According to Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director at ILGA-Europe: In its final judgment, the CJEU will have the opportunity to address the discrimination faced by trans EU citizens when a gender marker that does not correspond to their gender identity is recorded in the national registrars. The case is of the utmost importance to protect the rights of trans citizens in Hungary and across the EU, notably in the context of the Hungarian ban on legal gender recognition.

The opinion of the Advocate General is expected on 12 September 2024. The CJEU’s decision is anticipated later in the autumn, and it holds significant potential to influence the legal framework for trans rights within Hungary and the broader EU.

ILGA-Europe, alongside Transgender Europe (TGEU), are providing support to Háttér Society in this case.

Read the press release by Háttér Society here.

In the dynamic world of human rights advocacy, working together is essential. Last week marked a significant event of mass collaboration – the release of the 16th annual Rainbow Map of LGBTI human rights in Europe

The purpose of the Rainbow Map

At its core, the Rainbow Map is a tool of empowerment, designed to equip advocates with the knowledge needed to achieve change. With categories ranging from equality and non-discrimination to asylum rights, this resource serves as a compass, illuminating the path towards progress. Armed with the Rainbow Map, activists can leverage its insights to hold governments accountable, showcasing comparative data to drive policy reform and legislative action.

Stories of struggle and triumph

Behind every data point lies a narrative – a story of struggle and triumph, of setbacks and victories. The Rainbow Map is not merely a collection of statistics; it is a testament to the activism of LGBTI people across Europe for real change. Through the qualitative lens of ILGA-Europe’s Annual Review, the numbers come to life, providing context and depth to each country’s journey towards equality. When browsing each country in the Rainbow Map, you will find the Annual Review for the country under a number of themes.

The power of collaboration

The journey to publish the Rainbow Map each year is not a tale of an organisation in Brussels working alone. It’s a true example collective determination, and a display of LGBTI and allied teamwork across Europe, showcasing the strength of unity during tough times. More than 250 people, including activists, lawyers, and policymakers, contributed their expertise and passion to this project, which has become a go-to for anyone wanting to understand the development of LGBTI rights in Europe over the past 16 years. Their dedication and commitment to justice is woven into the very fabric of the Rainbow Map. This year, we made substantial progress by revamping the Rainbow Map’s interface and seamlessly integrating it with our ILGA-Europe website. This revitalisation reflects our commitment to continuous improvement, ensuring that users have access to the most user-friendly and informative platform possible.

Honouring the faces behind the numbers

As we continue our journey towards equality, equipped with the Map, let us remember the people behind the data – the activists who fight the good fight, the lawyers who litigate, the policymakers who advocate. Let’s honour their resilience, courage, and unwavering belief in a better tomorrow. As we navigate the complex landscape of LGBTI rights, let the Rainbow Map be our guidance, illuminating the path towards new successes.

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.

---

An opinion from the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union states that documents received in the UK by Romanian trans man must be recognised in his home country.

In a significant development regarding the rights of trans people in the European Union, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued an opinion calling for the automatic recognition in birth certificates of new name and gender marker acquired in a Member State.

The opinion specifically pertains to the case of Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi, a trans Romanian man facing his home country’s authorities’ refusal to recognise in his birth certificate his new gender marker, acquired further to his legal gender recognition in the United Kingdom.

Advocate General Jean Richard de La Tour said it was imperative that the Romanian state record in his birth certificate entries related to his name and gender without additional procedures. This recognition, argued the Advocate General, is essential in upholding the rights to free movement and private and family life guaranteed by the European Union.

Arian’s case, supported by the ACCEPT Association, ILGA-Europe and TGEU, marks a pivotal moment in addressing the mutual equivalence of legal gender recognition (LGR) procedures across EU Member States.

The refusal of authorities in Romania to recognise Arian’s UK-issued identity documents has left him in a precarious situation, living with two different identities. Despite being a citizen of the European Union, Arian’s ability to exercise his freedom of movement and his right to private and family life is hindered by the lack of recognition of his true identity in his home country. This discrepancy exposes him to discrimination and humiliating treatment, particularly at border crossings.

Expressing anticipation for a favourable judgment from the CJEU, Arian emphasised the significance of having his identity accurately represented in official documents. “The favourable judgment of the CJEU is extremely important for me and many other Romanian and EU citizens,” he said. “It is about respecting a fundamental civil right. I am Romanian, I am in the European Union, I am trans. My documents must represent me and be updated.”

The importance of this case extends beyond Arian’s individual circumstances. It underscores the broader issue faced by thousands of individuals whose rights are compromised due to disparities in identity recognition among EU Member States. The opinion of the Advocate General reinforces the principle that rights legally obtained in one Member State must remain valid throughout the EU.

In response to the Advocate General’s opinion, Katrin Hugendubel, Advocacy Director at ILGA-Europe, added: “The AG opinion confirms what we have been pointing out for EU institutions for quite some time: without mutual recognition of legal gender recognition from one member state to another, the right to freedom of movement is not guaranteed for trans people in the EU. We are looking forward to the judgement confirming this opinion and urge the European Commission yet again to put forward legislation that will guarantee the freedom of movement for all LGBTI people under its next term. The EU directive on parenthood recognition is a very important piece of the puzzle to ensure the freedom to reside and move across the EU for LGBTI people, but more is needed to ensure that trans people can move freely across the EU and enjoy citizenship rights on equal footing with every other citizen of the EU.”

As the CJEU deliberates on this case, there is a collective hope that the judgment will align with the opinion of the Advocate General and ensure the automatic recognition of Arian’s legal gender recognition in the corresponding entries of his birth certificate by the Romanian state. However, we hope that the Court will not take into account in its judgment the questions of “marriage and parentage” emphasised by the Advocate General in his Opinion, which are not at stake in Arian’s case.

Today, the Council of the EU officially adopted the EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence

As 13 civil society organisations¹ which advocate for human rights, gender equality, and the right for all to live free from violence, we welcome this first ever binding EU legislation on this issue as a groundbreaking step.

The Directive adopts a holistic approach to combat violence against women² and domestic violence, incorporating measures relating to prevention, protection, support for victims, access to justice and prosecution of perpetrators. This achievement is the result of long-term advocacy by feminist movements and Members of the European Parliament championing the European Commission’s ambitious proposal. We extend our gratitude to everyone involved in making this Directive as strong as possible.

We applaud the fact that the Directive recognizes the perpetration of female genital mutilation, forced marriage and certain forms of online violence as crimes. Unfortunately, other forms of violence were ultimately not criminalised, including intersex genital mutilation and forced sterilisation. We deeply regret that some Member States managed to derail the unprecedented opportunity to criminalise rape with a consent-based definition at the EU level. Sexual violence against women is endemic across the EU, with widespread impunity. Consent-based definitions of rape allow for all cases of rape to be included and strengthen protection and access to justice for victims of rape. We continue to call on all Member States who have not yet done so, to move towards adopting consent-based laws.

Crucially, the Directive will require Member States to do more to prevent rape, by raising public awareness of the fact that sex without consent is a crime, through awareness raising programmes and educational materials. We encourage Member States to embrace the comprehensive prevention approach outlined in the Directive, in particular primary prevention initiatives, and to provide mandatory comprehensive sexuality education, which includes consent education and challenges harmful gender norms.

The Directive further guarantees comprehensive support to victims of violence against women and girls and domestic violence and access to both general and specialist support services, shelters, support for child victims, as well as access to comprehensive medical care including sexual and reproductive health services. This is the first time that EU law imposes explicit obligations on Member States to provide access to this essential medical care for victims of sexual violence. Member States will also have to provide training for professionals likely to come into contact with victims, on how to provide this support.

The Directive recognises that victims of violence against women and domestic violence who experience intersectional discrimination are at a heightened risk of violence, and obliges Member States to meet their specific needs. Targeting a public figure, a human rights defender, or someone for their personal characteristics will constitute an aggravating circumstance. In the implementation of the Directive, Member States must ensure that all victims and survivors of gender-based violence are protected, no matter their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics.

However, EU lawmakers yet again silenced women impacted by EU migration policies. The only concrete step forward for migrant women is that the text requires Member States to make shelters available to all women experiencing domestic abuse, regardless of their residence status. Nonetheless we condemn that the final text does not retain provisions on protecting undocumented women’s personal data from being transmitted to immigration authorities (neither in the context of accessing shelters, nor in terms of accessing justice). Member States must ensure that women are not deterred from going to the police because of their residence status, by including access to safe reporting in the ongoing revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive.

We call on the European Commission to provide guidelines and training to Member States, based on international standards and in consultation with civil society organisations. We urge Member States to fully implement the Directive as soon as possible. Recalling that the Directive sets minimum standards, we call on Member States to go beyond these and to realise the highest standards across the EU.

We call on the European Commission to review the Directive in the next five years and to work towards comprehensive and inclusive measures to address all forms of sexual and gender-based violence without discrimination.

We, together with our members across Europe, are committed to providing our expertise, and look forward to supporting a strong implementation of the Directive, to progress towards a Europe where everyone is safe from gender-based violence.

1. Amnesty International, Center for Reproductive Rights, EuroCentralAsian Lesbian* Community (EL*C), End FGM European Network, European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance (ESWA), Human Rights Watch, ILGA-Europe (The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN), La Strada International, Organisation Intersex International Europe (OII Europe), Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), TGEU (Trans Europe and Central Asia), Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE).
   Our organisations work on a diverse range of women’s rights issues. In the drafting of this document, we have been led by the expertise of women’s rights organisations and women human rights defenders from communities most impacted by the specific forms of violence described in each section. Our commitment to the text below represents our coming together as a collective with shared values, even though not every organisation has its own policy or programme of work dedicated to each issue. ↩︎
2. Throughout this statement, the term “women” should be understood as including “women and girls”, as in the definition of “violence against women” proposed by the European Commission in the Directive, which encompasses “violence directed against a woman or a girl”.  ↩︎

ILGA-Europe stands with Kazakhstan’s LGBTI Community amid Russia-style attempts to criminalise LGBTI people and their human rights

ILGA-Europe express solidarity with the LGBTI community in Kazakhstan as they face legislative proposals which will worsen the already exacerbated situation of the LGBTI community in the country. Two concerning anti-LGBTI legislative initiatives that were voiced last week by two separate groups of members of Kazakhstan’s Parliament threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of LGBTI individuals in Kazakhstan.

The initiative by the Parliament members Aimagambetov and Ashimzhanov (both from Amanat Party) attempt to introduce a legal prohibition for mass media to write about “non-traditional sexual orientation”. In the same week, Parliament members Zhanbyrshin and Musabaev (also from Amanat party) introduced a draft amendment to include so-called “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” in the “discord incitement” provision 174 of the Criminal Code and to prohibit peaceful assemblies on the same ground.

Such initiatives aim to divert attention from pressing issues like natural disasters that the entire northern and western Kazakhstan has been suffering for the past few weeks, with so many villages and towns affected, and over 100,000 people relocated, as well as the nation’s worsening socioeconomic situation and rising public call for the elimination of domestic violence. We call on the Kazakhstan Government to not arbitrarily target the LGBTI community and violating the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution of Kazakhstan.

In the past couple of weeks, according to some media reports and from information spreading in messenger chats, the Law Enforcement of Astana have been illegally raiding nightclubs, specifically targeting LGBTI people. This is demonstrative of how such anti-LGBTI discourse and initiatives directly reflect on the safety of LGBTI people.

Kazakhstan’s current legislation does not protect LGBTI people from bias-motivated crimes, places discriminatory and humiliating barriers for legal gender recognition, bans same sex marriage and adoption by LGBTI persons, among many other pressing issues. The existing provisions restricting human rights of LGBTI people and any further attempts to do so contradict Kazakhstan’s international legal commitments, including the implementation of Recommendation No. 139.48 within the Kazakhstan’s previous reporting under Universal Periodic Review cycle, which calls for creating an enabling environment for LGBTI activist groups and human rights defenders.

We are also deeply concerned about the implications of amending Article 14 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, which would restrict the right to peaceful assembly for the LGBTI community and other civil society actors. This move further marginalises an already vulnerable community and threatens the democratic principles Kazakhstan aspires to uphold.

ILGA-Europe denounces any attempts to introduce discriminatory legislation that targets the LGBTI community. The LGBTI community in Kazakhstan deserves legal protection and recognition without discrimination.

We urge the Parliament to refrain from any future attempts of adopting anti-LGBTI legislation, and start to engage in meaningful dialogue with civil society and expert organisations to ensure the protection of LGBTI rights. We call on Kazakhstan to uphold its constitutional duty to protect the rights of all citizens, including on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

We call upon the International Partners of Kazakhstan to join us in reinforcing the dialogue on asking the Government of Kazakhstan to work towards improving the situation with human rights of LGBTI people.

ILGA-Europe stand in solidarity with the LGBTI community in Kazakhstan and reaffirm our commitment to supporting their struggle for equality, dignity, and respect. We encourage individuals and organisations to join us in speaking out against discrimination and advocating for the rights of all LGBTI individuals in Kazakhstan.

BACKGROUND

On February 11, the Ministry of Information of Kazakhstan blocked the selftanu.kz website which aimed at raising awareness of LGBTI teenagers about their rights and providing them with information on healthcare and reproductive rights, among others. The Ministry justified its decision that the information on the website violates the norm of the legislation on preventing dissemination of information that would cause harm to the health and development of children.

On February 23, Kazakhstan’s President Tokaev signed the law preventing LGBTI people from mentoring orphans. When asked how the authorities would identify LGBTI identity of prospective mentors, the Vice-Minister of Education of Kazakhstan Natalia Zhumadildaeva stated that LGBTI people would be prevented from adopting and mentoring orphans according to these provisions. She claimed that the Ministry had developed a special psychological test for such purposes. Again these are non-scientific and inhumane approaches that contradict common sense and go against Kazakhstan’s national and international commitments to uphold human rights and non-discrimination.

On March 5 the authorities of the Almaty Mayor’s office responded to questions why it had prohibited the women’s inclusive rally dedicated to International Women’s Day marked on March 8. Almaty authorities recalled that over the past few years, representatives of feminist movements have already held authorised rallies on March 8. But officials were unhappy that during the protests the organisers and participants “repeatedly deviated from the stated topic.” They claimed that there had been numerous requests from different citizens not to allow the women’s rally, because reportedly “In appeals to them and in messages on social networks, the organisers of the rally, under the guise of the fight for women’s rights, actually promoted non-traditional values that were alien to Kazakh society such as same-sex relationships, marriages, LGBT symbols and others. And, in order to ensure the safety of participants in peaceful assemblies, in order to avoid violation of the rights of city residents and other persons, and to prevent violation of public safety by the Almaty authorities, a decision was made not to approve the rally of feminist organisations”.

On April 5, within the discussions of amendments to the Law on Mass Media, the first initiative was put forward by Parliament Members Askhat Aimagambetov and Zhanarbek Ashimzhanov (both from Amanat Party) to include provisions that would ban Mass Media from mentioning anything about LGBTI. This was followed by another more restrictive initiative on April 10 by Parliament Members Edil Zhambyrshin and Samat Musabaev (also from Amanat Party). In particular, they proposed an amendment to Article 174 of the Criminal Code (“Inciting social, national, tribal, racial, class or religious hatred”) to include criminal charges for those who break the law and publicly mention about LGBTI. Although, both provisions did not make it to the second reading of the bill and when it was passed to the upper Chamber of the Parliament. However, LGBTI activists fear these amendments may resurface as the initiators made it clear they would not withdraw their attempts to follow through.

For the past couple of weeks, according to media reports and information shared on messenger chats, law enforcement in Astana has been illegally raiding night clubs and specifically targeting LGBTI people under the false pretence of preventing illegal proliferation of drugs. Reportedly the police are also raiding private parties organised in apartments and houses, as well as nightclubs that are not specifically LGBTI-themed.

Last year, Ukraine became a candidate country to join the European Union. But the country’s lack of LGBTI rights threatens to hinder the process

As Ukraine charts its course towards European Union enlargement, it’s vital to focus on improving LGBTI rights in the country. While there’s notable support from society – with 72% of Ukrainians now supporting equal rights for LGBT people – and the international community, hurdles within the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs threaten to impede progress.

Despite significant strides, resistance persists within the corridors of power. This resistance not only undermines Ukraine’s commitment to EU integration but also poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of LGBTI people.

The leverage of the EU accession process cannot be overstated. The European institutions and EU member states have strength and influence to achieve change. By actively engaging with Ukrainian counterparts and lending their support to legislative initiatives aimed at safeguarding the rights of all individuals, the European Commission and Parliament, but also EU governments play a crucial role in Ukraine’s journey towards EU integration.

Recognition of same-sex partnerships

Recently, members of the European Parliament’s LGBTI Intergroup sent a letter to President Volodymyr Zelensky, showing their support for two important draft laws in Ukraine. These laws, if passed, could make a big difference for LGBTI people in Ukraine and bring the country closer to joining the EU.

One of these laws, Draft Law 9103 is the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships. Beyond its legal implications, this would symbolise a monumental shift towards equality and non-discrimination, echoing the values espoused by the EU. If passed, it would provide legal protections and rights to same-sex couples, similar to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples, such as inheritance rights, medical decision-making authority, and financial protections – many of these rights reaching a new significance since the onset of the war in Ukraine.

Protection against hate crimes

Another crucial law mentioned in the letter and awaiting the decision of the Ukrainian Parliament, Draft Law 5488, is the Protection Against Hate Crimes – including those motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity. If enacted, it would provide legal protections to LGBTI people and other vulnerable groups who are targeted for violence or discrimination based on their identity.

In its judgment of 11 April 2024 in Karter v. Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ukraine violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in view of the ineffective investigation of two verbal and physical attacks of the applicant, a gay man, involving homophobic slurs. Further to the first attack, the authorities did not follow up on the applicants’ hate crime allegations and initially classified it as a robbery. The Court noted that the criminal-law classification the national authorities had chosen for the second attack as falling under the ordinary provisions of criminal law undermined their ability to uncover the alleged homophobic motive behind the attack.

The Court specifically considered the lack of explicit recognition of attacks motivated by sexual orientation as an aggravating circumstance in domestic criminal law in general and under Article 161 of the Criminal Code in particular and the difficulty that the absence of such recognition in domestic criminal law causes in the effective investigation of homophobia-motivated attacks. It considers that domestic authorities should “conduct the investigation taking all reasonable steps with the aim of unmasking the role of possible homophobic motives for the attack” as, otherwise, “prejudice‑motivated crimes would unavoidably be treated on an equal footing with ordinary cases without such overtones, and the resultant indifference would be tantamount to official acquiescence to or even connivance with hate crimes.”

This court ruling serves as another reason for Ukraine to prioritize and enact legislation aimed at addressing the issues highlighted, further emphasizing the urgency of legal reform in safeguarding the rights of LGBTI individuals. As Ukraine moves forward on its path towards European Union enlargement, the support of EU institutions and politicians is crucial in achieving meaningful change and upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination. By enacting these laws, Ukraine not only strengthens its position on the path towards EU integration but also reinforces its commitment to human rights.