CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 October 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 65128/19 Alex-Daniel CSATA against Romania lodged on 3 December 2019 communicated on 16 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE This application has been submitted by a male-to-female transgender person. She states that she has been living as a woman since high school, being acknowledged as such in her current workplace; in 2013 she started a feminizing hormone therapy. She complains about not being able to obtain gender recognition in Romania, in the form of having her legal gender marker, forename and national identification number amended in her identity documents and her civil status records. By final decision of 23   May 2019 (communicated on 10   July 2019), the Timiș County Court rejected the applicant’s requests for the change of these identification elements on the ground that she had not undergone and was not planning to undergo gender reassignment surgery. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the respondent State’s refusal to grant legal recognition to the applicant’s gender identity amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right to respect of her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (compare with X and Y v. Romania , no. 2145/16, 19 January 2021) or to discriminatory treatment in breach of Article 14 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, does the respondent State have a clear and predictable legal framework concerning the legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people who have not undergone or do not wish to undergo gender reassignment surgery (see X and Y v. Romania , no. 2145/16, §§   150 ‑ 68, 19 January 2021)?   3.     Furthermore, has the precondition to undergo gender reassignment surgery in order to have her new sex/gender identity legally recognised been in compliance with Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention?