Women and Justice: Keywords

Domestic Case Law

Cправа №815/4612/15 (Case No. 815/4612/15) адміністративного суду у складі Верховного Суду (Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court ) (2019)

LGBTIQ

Officials of the Odessa City Council sued the head of the organizing committee of "Odessa Pride-2015" (a multi-day queer festival and peaceful meeting in support of human rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity scheduled for August 2015), in order to limit the right of this organization to peaceful assembly by banning their mass public events, namely gatherings, rallies, pickets, demonstrations meetings, etc., in the center of Odessa. The claim was based on the fact that although the organizers of "Odessa Pride-2015" sent a notification letter containing the date of the event in advance (as required in Article 39 of the Constitution of Ukraine), there was no detailed information about the nature of the planned peaceful assembly, place, time, routes, etc., which made it impossible for local authorities and law enforcement agencies to take necessary measures in the interests of public order to prevent riots or crimes. The first-instance court partially satisfied the claim, finding that the equality march of the LGBTQ community could create a real danger and threat to public order in the city. The appellate court left this decision unchanged. However, the Supreme Court overruled the decisions of the courts of the previous instance, noting that in order to restrict the right to assemble peacefully, the court must be convinced of the reality of a possible threat and such reality must be confirmed by relevant evidence. Given that there was no such evidence in this case, the courts of previous instances wrongfully restricted the defendant's constitutional right to peaceful assembly. This case is important because it affirms the right of marginalized people to peacefully assemble in celebration of their identity and humanity without undue state interference.

Чиновники Одеської міськради подали до суду на голову організаційного комітету "Одеса Прайд-2015" (багатоденний квір-фестиваль і мирний мітинг на підтримку прав людини для всіх, незалежно від сексуальної орієнтації та гендерної ідентичності, запланований на серпень 2015 року), з метою обмеження права цієї організації на мирні зібрання,, шляхом заборони проведення масових публічних заходів, а саме зборів, мітингів, пікетів, демонстраційних мітингів тощо в центрі Одеси. Позов обґрунтовувався тим, що хоча організатори "Одеса-Прайд-2015" заздалегідь надіслали лист-повідомлення із зазначенням дати проведення заходу (як того вимагає стаття 39 Конституції України), однак в ньому не було детальної інформації про характер запланованого мирного зібрання, місце, час, маршрути тощо, що унеможливило вжиття органами місцевого самоврядування та правоохоронними органами необхідних заходів з метою підтримання громадського порядку та запобігання заворушенням чи злочинам. Суд першої інстанції частково задовольнив позов, встановивши, що марш рівності ЛГБТК-спільноти може створити реальну небезпеку та загрозу громадському порядку в місті. Суд апеляційної інстанції залишив це рішення без змін. Проте, Верховний Суд скасував рішення судів попередньої інстанції, зазначивши, що для обмеження права на мирні зібрання суд має переконатися в реальності можливої загрози і така загроза має бути підтверджена відповідними доказами. Враховуючи відсутність таких доказів у цій справі, суди попередніх інстанцій неправомірно обмежили конституційне право відповідача на мирні зібрання. Цей випадок важливий, оскільки він підтверджує право груп (спільнот), які зазнають дискримінації, мирно збиратися для святкування своєї ідентичності та людяності без неправомірного втручання держави.

Toulouse Cour d’Appel, 9 Fevrier 2022, No. 20/03128 Toulouse Cour d’Appel (2022)

International law, LGBTIQ

With this decision, the Toulouse Court of Appeal held that a transgender woman had the right to be designated as the mother of her child when she had conceived the child before undergoing gender affirmation surgery. V., the claimant, and N.D. married and had two children. In 2009, V. successfully applied to change her civil status from male to female. She conceived the child that was the subject of these proceedings in 2014. She sought to be registered as the child’s mother, as opposed to as a surrogate, but the civil register refused. Until the decision of the Court of Appeal, only the claimant’s partner, their child’s biological mother, was listed on the child’s birth certificate. The claimant successfully argued, among other things, that it would be in the best interests of the child to have the claimant linked as the biological parent on the birth certificate. The decision was the first of its kind in France, and the result of eight years of proceedings. The Toulouse Court of Appeal referred in particular to the primacy of the child’s best interests, enshrined in the New York Convention, and to the right to respect for private and family life and the right to sexual self-determination, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 8 and 14). It found that those conventions require that a child born to a couple including a transgender person have the right to have both parents legally recognized, and that those conventions were not contrary to French national law.

Avec cette décision, la Cour d’Appel de Toulouse décide qu’une femme transgenre a le droit d’être désigné comme la mère de cette enfant, quand elle conçoit l’enfant avant sa chirurgie transgenre. V, le plaignant, et N.D. sont marié et ont deux enfants. En 2009, V avec succès change son statut civil d’homme à femme. Elle conçoit l’enfant qui est le sujet de ce litige en 2014. Elle souhaite être inscrite comme la mère de l’enfant, non pas comme la mère porteuse, mais le registre de l’état-civil refuse. Avant la décision de la Cour d’Appel, seul le conjoint de la plaignante, la mère biologique de l’enfant, était inscrit sur le certificat de naissance de l’enfant. La plaignante invoque avec succès que ce sera dans les meilleurs intérêts de l’enfant d’avoir la plaignante inscrite comme un parent biologique sur le certificat de naissance. La décision est la première de ce type en France, résultant après huit ans de procédure judiciaire. La Cour d’Appel de Toulouse a fondé la décision juridique sur l’importance des meilleurs intérêts de l’enfant, inscrit dans la Convention de New York, et le droit de respect de la vie privée et familiale, inscrit dans la Convention Européenne de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales (Articles 8 et 14). La Cour d’Appel de Toulouse trouve que ces conventions requièrent qu’un enfant né d’un couple incluant une personne transgenre à le droit d’avoir les deux parents reconnus légalement, et que ces conventions ne sont pas contraires à la loi nationale française.

Foy v. Registrar General & Attorney General High Court of Ireland (2007)

Gender discrimination, International law, LGBTIQ

In 2007, the High Court held that the failure to allow the applicant, a transgender woman who had undergone gender-affirming surgery, to obtain a new birth certificate recording her gender as female violated her rights under Article 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had been made part of Irish law, despite having found in previous proceedings involving the same applicant that her constitutional right to privacy was not disproportionately or excessively infringed. The Court agreed with the applicant that existing Irish law barred the effective recognition of her Article 8 and 12 rights in Ireland as they rendered her without the power to correct or vary the original entry on her birth certificate. The High Court considered the European Court of Human Right’s 2002 decisions in Goodwin v. United Kingdom and I. v. United Kingdom, in which the Court held that the State’s failure to have a system of law in place affording proper respect for a trans person’s Convention rights violated Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.

Rehman v Federation of Pakistan Lahore High Court (2017)

International law, LGBTIQ

On a petition filed by a transgender individual for violation of constitutional rights, arguing that the census excluded transgender people with disabilities. The High Court ordered the Census Commission to include transgender in a separate column. This followed a recent order dated 09 January 2017 in writ petition (No. 37499/2016), where the High Court ordered the Census Commission to include the category “Transgender” under the column “Sex” in Form-2. The transgender category was assigned code/number 3 in the said column of Form-2 under disability. The High Court’s rationale was that exclusion of persons with disabilities from the National Census would offend their welfare and future prospects as a population and therefore violate constitutional provisions of security, dignity and freedom of speech of a person. The court further observed that Pakistan had ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2011, which places an international obligation on Pakistan to collect appropriate information about persons with disabilities and to implement policies accordingly.

Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade 4275 (Direct Action of Unconstitutionality) Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Federal Court of Brazil) (2009)

Gender discrimination, LGBTIQ

Brazil’s Supreme Court decided by a majority that transgender individuals could change their legal name and gender originally included in their civil registry, without the presentation of psychological or medical evaluation, hormonal treatment, transition surgery, or any other medical procedure. The majority understood that no judicial authorization is necessary for the amendment, stating only a self-written report of the trans person is sufficient to change his/her legal name.

O Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF decidiu, por maioria de votos, que as pessoas transgêneros podem alterar seu prenome e sua classificação de gênero no registro civil, mediante auto-declaração, sendo desnecessária a apresentação de laudos psicológicos, tratamento hormonais ou procedimentos cirúrgicos ou de autorização judicial.

Legislation

Gender Recognition Act 2015 (2015)

Gender discrimination, LGBTIQ

The Act provides for recognition of changes of gender, issuance of gender recognition certificates, and conforming amendments to other legislation, including the Adoption Act 2010. Any person of at least 18 years of age who is not married or in a civil partnership, inter alia (Section 9), may apply to the Minister for Social Protection for a gender recognition certificate (Section 8). Where a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, that person’s gender shall from the date of that issue become for all purposes the ‘preferred’ gender and sex (Section 18). The fact that a gender recognition certificate is issued to a person shall not affect the status of the person as the father or mother of a child born prior to the certificate’s date of the issue (Section 19), or the disposal or devolution of property under a will (including a codicil), or other instrument executed before the date the Act came into operation (Section 20). The Act also provides for “gender specific [criminal] offenses” in relation to the treatment of people with gender recognition certificates. Notably, where a relevant gender-specific sexual offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of the person with a gender recognition certificate were not the ‘preferred’ gender, that fact does not prevent the sexual offence being committed or attempted (Section 23). Finally, a person who has a gender recognition certificate may apply to the Minister for Social Protection to revoke the certificate (Section 15).

Civilinis Kodeksas (Civil Code) (2000)

Divorce and dissolution of marriage, LGBTIQ

Under the Civil Code, same-sex marriages are prohibited. In case of a divorce by mutual consent, the marriage can be dissolved if over a year has elapsed, the spouses have made a contract regarding divorce consequences, and they have full active legal capacity. If a couple has children, they have equal rights and duties as parents, regardless of whether they were married, divorced, or separated. A parent cannot surrender their rights or responsibilities over underage children. An unmarried person can adopt a child only in exceptional cases, and unmarried persons may not adopt the same child. In addition, the adopter must be under the age of 50. Moreover, the Code states that an unmarried adult can change their designated gender if it is feasible medically with conditions for the change prescribed by law. Essential to mention, there is no existing legislation setting out the requirements for gender reassignment (see L. v. Lithuania, even though the case is from 2007, legislation efforts have been stalled to this day). English translation available here.

Pagal civilinį kodeksą tos pačios lyties asmenų santuokos yra draudžiamos. Santuoka gali būti nutraukta bendru sutarimu, jei praėjo daugiau nei metai, sutuoktiniai sudarė sutartį dėl santuokos nutraukimo pasekmių ir jie turi teisinį veiksnumą. Jei pora turi vaikų, jie turi lygias teises ir pareigas kaip tėvai, nepriklausomai nuo to, ar jie susituokę, išsiskyrę ar gyvena skyrium. Tėvas ar motina negali atsisakyti teisių ar pareigų savo nepilnamečiams vaikams. Nesusituokęs asmuo gali įvaikinti vaiką tik išimtiniais atvejais, o nesusituokę asmenys negali įvaikinti to paties vaiko. Be to, įvaikintojas turi būti jaunesnis nei 50 metų. Taip pat, kodekse nustatyta, kad nesusituokęs suaugęs asmuo gali pakeisti paskirtą lytį, jei tai įmanoma mediciniškai, įstatymų nustatyta tvarka. Svarbu paminėti, kad iki šiol nėra galiojančių teisės aktų, nustatančių lyties keitimo sąlygas (žr. L prieš Lietuvą).

Código Penal: Livro II, Título III - Crimes contra a identidade cultural e a integridade pessoal (Crimes against cultural identity and personal integrity) (1995)

Gender-based violence in general, LGBTIQ

Article 240 criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others. The sentence is imprisonment for one to eight years.

O artigo 240 criminaliza a discriminação e incitamento ao ódio e à violência baseado em raça, gênero, orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, entre outros. A pena é de prisão de um a oito anos.

Zakon o azilu (Law on Asylum) (2016)

Gender discrimination, International law, LGBTIQ

This law sets the procedure for granting refugee status; the status of subsidiary protection; cessation and revocation of a refugee status and the status of subsidiary protection; temporary protection, identification documents; the rights and obligations of asylum-seekers, refugees, and aliens under subsidiary protection; and other issues related to asylum in BiH. Article 9 of the Law on Asylum enhances the protection of women as it prohibits the discrimination of aliens on all grounds stipulated in the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual characteristics. English translation available through RefWorld External URL.

Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act (Title 34, Chapter 37, General Laws of Rhode Island)


Gender discrimination, LGBTIQ, Property and inheritance rights

The Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act prohibits housing practices that discriminate based on gender identity or expression, which is defined to include a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

International Case Law

L. prieš Lietuvą (L. v. Lithuania) European Court of Human Rights (2007)

International law, LGBTIQ

The applicant was born a female and given a female name; however, recognizing his gender as male, he underwent partial gender reassignment treatment and changed his name. Further process was halted since the Parliament had not passed legislation regulating full gender-reassignment treatment, and no transsexual rights were implemented for the following four years. This created issues for the applicant, such as applying for jobs, loans, seeking medical treatment, and crossing the border. The ECtHR ruled that the State’s failure to enact relevant legislation violated the right to private and family life (Article 8) and awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

Gimusio pareiškėjo lytis buvo įregistruota kaip mergaitės ir jam buvo suteiktas moteriškas vardas. Tačiau, pripažindamas savo lytį kaip vyro, jis atliko dalinę lyties pakeitimo operaciją ir pakeitė savo vardą. Tolesnis procesas buvo sustabdytas, nes Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas nepriėmė teisės aktų, reglamentuojančių lyties keitimo sąlygų ir tvarkos. Taip pat, byloje paminėta, jog per ketverius metus nuo civilinio kodekso nuostatų įsigaliojimo nebuvo įgyvendintos transseksualų teisės. Tai sukėlė problemų pareiškėjui, ypač kreipiantis dėl darbo, paskolos, gydymo ir kertant sieną. EŽTT nusprendė, kad valstybės nesugebėjimas priimti atitinkamų teisės aktų pažeidė pareiškėjo teisę į privatų ir šeimos gyvenimą bei priteisė pareiškėjui turtinę ir neturtinę žalą. Vertimas lietuvių kalba: http://lrv-atstovas-eztt.lt/uploads/L._2007_sprendimas.pdf

Reports

Eurasian Coalition on Male Health: National Report on the Violation of Human Rights of Gay Men, Other MSM and Trans People, in Particular the Right to Health, in Georgia 2018 (2019)

Gender discrimination, International law, LGBTIQ

This report by the Eurasian Coalition on Male Health (ECOM.ngo) discusses the status and treatment of LGBTQ people in Georgia, specifically gay men, other men who have sex with men (MSM), and trans people. It explains existing legal protections for LGBTQ people, societal attitudes, human rights violations, and recommendations for future progress. (PDF is in English. The External Link offers Russian, English, and Estonian.)

Visit to Georgia: Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (2019)

International law, LGBTIQ

This report provides an overview of Georgian law regarding the discrimination against and the violation of human rights for members of the LGBTQ community. The letter is written by the UN’s Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, and assesses the implementation of existing and national and international human rights standards to combat violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (Links to translations in: Russian, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese).