CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 21 June 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54006/20 R.K. against Hungary lodged on 16 November 2020 communicated on 31 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Hungarian transgender person. On 6 January 2018, the applicant turned to the Budapest Government Office ( Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala ) to initiate administrative proceedings with the aim of having his sex/gender marker and name on the birth certificate changed. The Government Office informed the applicant that, contrary to previous practice, the Ministry of Human Resources no longer assessed whether the diagnosis of transsexuality was well-substantiated based on medical documents or issued a “supporting expert opinion” on that basis. There were no other authorities entitled to do so. In the absence of the requisite supporting opinion, the Government Office could not issue an official notification on the change of gender for the Office of Registrar of Births/Marriages/Deaths. Thus, it simply forwarded the case file to the registrar. The registrar rejected the applicant’s request on account of the missing legal prerequisites for registering the change in the applicant’s sex/gender marker and name – that is the existence of the supporting expert opinion and the official notification. The applicant sought judicial review, but to no avail. On 10 June 2020 the Budapest-Capital Regional Court dismissed the case, pointing out that the administrative authorities had been right in rejecting the applicant’s request as they had been bound by the requirements of the statutory provisions on legal recognition of gender identity. Neither the administrative nor the judicial procedures could remedy the deficiencies or gaps in the existing legal provisions on the matter. In the meantime, on 19 May 2020, the Hungarian Parliament adopted amendments to Act I of 2010 on Civil Registration Procedure according to which “the sex at birth” of the person concerned cannot be changed. As of 2   July 2020, the legislative provision on the registrar’s responsibilities concerning the registration of new gender identity was also repealed . The applicant complains that under Hungarian legislation – due to the deficiencies of the legislative framework and, since 29 May 2020, due to an explicit legislative ban – he has been denied legal recognition of the change in his name and sex/gender marker. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to private life under Article 8 of the Convention in view of the alleged deficiencies of the legislative framework regulating the conditions and procedure for registering the new identity of a transgender person (see X v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 29683/16, §§   63 ‑ 71, 17 January 2019)?