003-3353755-3754421

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 910   30.11.2010   Restriction of contact arrangements between a transsexual and   her six-year-old son was in the child’s best interests   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of P.V. v. Spain (application no. 35159/09),   which is not final,1 the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in   conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   Principal facts   The applicant, P.V., is a Spanish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Lugo   (Spain). She is a male-to-female transsexual who, prior to her gender reassignment, had   a son with P.Q.F. in 1998. When they separated in 2002 the judge approved the   amicable agreement they had concluded, by which custody of the child was awarded to   the mother and parental responsibility to both parents jointly. The agreement also laid   down contact arrangements for the applicant, who was to spend every other weekend   and half of the school holidays with the child.   In May 2004 P.Q.F. applied to have P.V. deprived of parental responsibility and to have   the contact arrangements and any communication between the father and the child   suspended, arguing that the father had shown a lack of interest in the child and adding   that P.V. was undergoing hormone treatment with a view to gender reassignment and   usually wore make-up and dressed like a woman. P.Q.F.’s application was dismissed in   respect of the first point.   As regards the contact arrangements, the judge decided to restrict them rather than   suspend them entirely. Since ordinary contact arrangements could not be made on   account of P.V.’s lack of emotional stability, a gradual arrangement was put in place,   initially involving a three-hour meeting every other Saturday “until [P.V.] undergoes   surgery and fully recovers her physical and psychological capacities”. The judge pointed   out that P.V. had begun the gender-reassignment process only a few months earlier and   that it entailed far-reaching changes to all aspects of her life and her personality and   hence emotional instability, a characteristic noted by the psychologist in her report.   That decision was upheld by the Audiencia Provincial, which reiterated that ordinary   contact arrangements could undermine the child’s emotional stability. The child would   have to come to terms gradually with his father’s decision, which he was in the process   of doing since they enjoyed a good emotional relationship. As regards the applicant’s   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution     objection to the psychologist who had drawn up the report, the Audiencia Provincial held   that it had not been raised in time.   The contact arrangements were extended in February 2006 to five hours every other   Sunday and subsequently, in November 2006, to every other Saturday and every other   Sunday, for approximately eight hours each time.   In December 2008 an amparo appeal by the applicant was dismissed. The Constitutional   Court held that the ground for restricting the contact arrangements had not been P.V.’s   transsexualism but her lack of emotional stability, which had entailed a real and   significant risk of disturbing her son’s emotional well-being and the development of his   personality, in view of his age – he had been six years old at the time of the expert   report – and the stage of his development at that time. The court held that in reaching   that decision, the judicial authorities had taken into account the child’s best interests,   weighed against those of the parents, and not P.V.’s status as a transsexual.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in conjunction with   Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complained about the restrictions   ordered by a judge on the arrangements for contact with her son, on the ground that her   lack of emotional stability following her gender reassignment was liable to upset the   child, who had been six years old at the time.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 June 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President,   Elisabet Fura (Sweden),   Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia),   Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands),   Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges,   and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court agreed that once they had learned of P.V.’s gender emotional instability, the   Spanish courts had adopted contact arrangements that were less favourable to her than   those laid down in the separation agreement.   The Court emphasised that, although no issue of sexual orientation arose in the   applicant’s case, transsexualism was a notion covered by Article 14, which contained a   non-exhaustive list of prohibited grounds for discrimination.   While emotional disturbance had not been considered a sufficient reason for restricting   contact, the decisive ground for the restriction had been the risk of jeopardising the   child’s psychological well-being and the development of his personality. In addition,   P.V.’s lack of emotional stability had been noted in a psychological expert report which   she had had the opportunity to challenge.   Rather than suspending contact entirely, the judge had made a gradual arrangement,   whereby he would review the situation on the basis of a report submitted every two   months. From a three-hour meeting every two weeks under professional supervision, the   contact arrangements were eventually extended to eight hours every other Saturday and   every other Sunday. The overriding factor in that decision had been the child’s best   interests and not the applicant’s transsexualism, the aim being that the child would   gradually become accustomed to his father’s gender reassignment. The Court further   noted that the contact arrangements had been extended although there had been no   change in the applicant’s gender status during that period.   The Court therefore considered that the restriction of the contact arrangements had not   resulted from discrimination on the ground of the applicant’s transsexualism and   concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article   14.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3