CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2022

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Published on 12 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54708/21 Constantin-Claudiu GEONEA against Romania lodged on 21 October 2021 communicated on 26 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a transgender man. In 2002, in accordance with the procedure at the time, he requested that the judicial authorities order the National Institute of Forensic Medicine to carry out a medical expert report which would enable him to undergo sex reassignment surgery. The request was successful, and he began hormone treatment in 2003. From 2003 to 2012 he attempted to obtain surgery in the public health system and was placed on waiting lists. He finally decided to pay for the surgery himself and, in 2012 and 2013, underwent several operations necessary for his transition (such as a hysterectomy and bilateral mastectomy). In 2013 the applicant made a request to the domestic courts to change his first name and his legal gender marker, considering that the surgery he had undergone would be sufficient to justify this. After having his request rejected, he reintroduced it on 14 July 2016. By final decision of 30   March 2018, the Vâlcea County Court agreed to change his legal marker and rejected the remainder of the request as premature. The District Court held that, while the legal marker could already be changed, the applicant still had to undergo sex reassignment surgery and subsequently could obtain the change of his first name through an administrative procedure. Consequently, the administrative authorities provided him with an ID card containing contradictory information: it specified male in the “sex” section of the ID card but retained a female first name. In March 2020 he underwent phalloplasty. He subsequently requested domestic courts to have his first name changed. On 10 December 2020, the Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, acting as a first instance court, rejected the demand as premature. It found that the change of name should have been requested before administrative authorities. The applicant was to come to court only after obtaining a rejection from these authorities. Therefore, M   Geonea initiated administrative proceedings. He managed to obtain legal recognition of his gender identity on 27 April 2021, when he was issued with a birth certificate specifying the desired legal gender marker, first name and national identification number. On 6 May 2021 he was issued an ID card containing the same information. Relying upon Articles 8 and 14, he complained of the lack of a clear, fair and predictable domestic legal framework concerning the legal gender recognition of transgender people. He argued that, in order to obtain this recognition, he was required to undergo the full series of sex reassignment operations, none of which were available free of charge within the public health system. Furthermore, he obtained the necessary legal recognition only 18   years after the first steps taken, a period during which he was continuously humiliated and traumatised, being unable to enter the labour market or otherwise integrate into society.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the Convention to claim to be a victim of a violation within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the respondent State’s refusal to grant legal recognition of the applicant’s gender identity for more than 18 years amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article   8 (compare with X and Y v. Romania, nos. 2145/16 and 20607/16, 19 January 2021) and/or to discriminatory treatment in breach of Article 14 of the Convention?   4.     In particular, does the respondent State have a clear and predictable legal framework concerning legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people (see X and Y v. Romania, nos. 2145/16 and 20607/16, §§   150-168, 19 January 2021)?   5.     Furthermore, was the precondition to undergo sex reassignment surgery in order to have gender identity legally recognised in compliance with Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention?