Trans-related cases in the ECtHR
ECtHR cases heard in full | Cases heard only by the Commission | The X, Y, & Z case | Sheffield & Horsham | Goodwin & ’I’
ECtHR cases heard in full
Warning! These documents are long, and will take a while to download. Sizes indicated in italics.
- The Van Oosterwijck case, October 1980 (Size: 77Kb)
- Rees v. The United Kingdom, September 1986 (Size: 53Kb)
- The Cossey case, August 1990 (Size: 128Kb)
- B. v. France, January 1992 (Size: 126Kb)
- See also:
- Grant v. UK, May 2006
ECtHR cases heard only by the Commission
(The European Commission of Human Rights examines cases to seek a resolution where possible, and otherwise to decide whether the case should be referred to the European Court of Human Rights, making recommendations if it does so)
- Paula James v. United Kingdom: commission ruled that there was no violation of the Convention, by majority vote, December 1988 (plain text, 45Kb)
- W. v. United Kingdom: commission ruled that there was no violation of the Convention, unanimous on one count, by majority vote on the other; March 1989 (plain text, 47Kb)
- C. v. United Kingdom: commission ruled that there was a violation of Article 12 of the Convention, but no violation of article 8, by majority vote on both counts; May 1989 (plain text, 45Kb)
- Eriksson & Goldschmidt v. Sweden: case ruled inadmissable, November 1989 (plain text, 7Kb)
- I. v. United Kingdom: case ruled partly admissable, May 1997 (plain text, 21Kb)
- L.F. v. Ireland: case ruled inadmissable, July 1997 (plain text, 47Kb)
- Roetzheim v. Germany: case ruled inadmissable, October 1997 (plain text, 15Kb)
- Paul KARA v. United Kingdom: case ruled inadmissable (22 October 1998)
- Goodwin. v. United Kingdom: case ruled admissable, December 1997 (plain text, 32Kb)
The X, Y, Z case
In which a trans man took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, but failed to secure the right to be recognised as the father of his children.
- Review of the judgment
- The full judgment of the ECHR (77Kb)
- European Commission on Human Rights: decision on admissability of the case (plain text, 18Kb)
- European Commission on Human Rights: report on the case (plain text, 58Kb)
- Amicus brief from Rights International on the X, Y & Z case
Sheffield & Horsham
In this case, heard by the ECtHR in 1998, two trans women claimed that the UK government’s refusal to correct their birth certificates violates the European Convention for the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms.
- Foreword to Liberty’s amicus brief for the Sheffield and Horsham case
- Liberty’s amicus brief for the Sheffield and Horsham case, in three parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)
- ECHR: Commission’s preliminary ruling on admissability of the case of Rachel Horsham: September 1995 (plain text, 12Kb)
- ECHR: Commission’s Final ruling on admissability of the case of Rachel Horsham: January 1996 (plain text, 14Kb)
- ECHR: Commission’s preliminary ruling on admissability of the case of Kristina Sheffield: September 1995 (plain text, 13Kb)
- ECHR: Commission’s Final ruling on admissability of the case of Kristina Sheffield: January 1996 (plain text, 15Kb)
- ECHR: Commission report on Horsham v. United Kingdom (56Kb)
- ECHR: Commission report on Sheffield v. United Kingdom (59Kb)
- Full text of the Court’s judgment (1998-07-30, 117Kb)
- Analysis: Court criticises UK government
- Kristina Sheffield v. Air Foyle Charter Airlines — full text of the 1998 industrial tribunal ruling in which the applicant was found to have been unlawfully discriminated against because she was trans when her application for employment was rejected.
Goodwin & ’I’
In these landmark cases, the ECtHR finally ruled in favour of the transsexual applicants from the UK, prompting the government to introduce the Gender Recognition Bill to give effect to the ECtHR’s judgment.
- Goodwin v United Kingdom full text of the Europe Court of Human Rights judgment (2002-07-11)
- ’I’ v United Kingdom full text of the Europe Court of Human Rights judgment (2002-07-11)
- Goodwin & ’I’ v. United Kingdom Government: What Does it Mean?
- Goodwin & ’I’ v. United Kingdom Government: What We Need to do Now