003-7262566-9889216

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 048 (2022)   17.02.2022   Refusal to alter full birth certificate following gender reassignment was not a   violation   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Y v. Poland (application no. 74131/14) 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) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, and   no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case concerned applications by Y, a transgender man, to have reference to his gender assigned   at birth removed from his birth certificate, or to have a new birth certificate issued.   The Court found in particular that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate that he had   suffered any disadvantage as a result of the decisions of the domestic authorities. They had balanced   the interests at stake, acting within their discretion, when refusing to alter the full birth certificate.   Principal facts   The applicant, Y, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in the Île-de-France region.   Y underwent gender reassignment from female to male. In 1992 he obtained a court order in Poland   to amend his birth certificate to reflect this change. His daughter’s birth certificate in France   indicates him as the father.   In 2008 he applied to the Polish authorities to have the mention of the 1992 court decision removed   from the birth certificate. Following decisions by three administrative authorities, the Opole   Regional Administrative Court dismissed his application. That decision was upheld by the Supreme   Administrative Court following a cassation appeal.   In 2011 Y applied for a new birth certificate via the courts. He was unsuccessful at three levels of   jurisdiction, with the Supreme Court holding, following his cassation appeal, that it was not possible   to issue a new birth certificate following gender reassignment, and thus the changes would have to   be indicated as an annotation to the original birth certificate.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of   discrimination), the applicant complained that his birth certificate included reference to his gender   at birth, and that he was discriminated against vis-à-vis adopted children, who were issued new birth   certificates.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 November 2014.   1. 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.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Marko Bošnjak (Slovenia), President,   Péter Paczolay (Hungary),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   Davor Derenčinović (Croatia),   and also Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court noted some salient facts, in particular that the applicant lived as a man and was married,   that his short-form birth certificate and identity documents indicated his reassigned gender only,   and that the long-form birth certificate was not accessible to the public and was required only in rare   circumstances. The Court was mindful of the historical importance of original birth certificates, and   the need to guarantee the reliability of civil records.   Overall, the applicant had not demonstrated any negative consequences as a result of the refusals   by the Polish authorities.   The Court ruled that the Polish authorities had acted within their broad discretion (“margin of   appreciation”), striking a balance between the relevant interests in the current case, finding no   violation of Article 8.   Article 14   The Court judged that the situation of the applicant and that of adopted children were insufficiently   similar to make the argument that he had suffered discrimination. There had been no violation of   the applicant’s rights under this Article.   The judgment is available only in English.   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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Neil Connolly (tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel : + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel : + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel : + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   2