## Facts

- Christine Goodwin, a United Kingdom national born in 1937, was a post-operative male-to-female transsexual who lived full-time as a woman.
- She began living socially as female in the mid-1980s and underwent gender reassignment surgery in 1990, funded through the National Health Service.
- Despite her transition, U.K. law continued to treat her as male for key civil-status purposes because her birth certificate recorded male sex and domestic rules generally relied on sex registered at birth.
- This lack of legal recognition affected daily life, including employment and privacy: she faced risks of unwanted disclosure when documents or records did not match her lived gender, and she reported workplace difficulties and harassment linked to her status.
- The mismatch also affected social security and pension treatment, including the age at which she could receive a state pension, because pension ages differed for men and women under the then-existing rules.
- Goodwin was in a relationship with a man and wished to marry a man, but she could not do so because she was considered male for marriage eligibility, and marriage in domestic law was limited to opposite-sex partners as defined by birth sex.
- She lodged an application to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1995 (later transferred to the European Court of Human Rights after institutional changes) alleging violations of Articles 8, 12, 13, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the United Kingdom’s refusal to provide legal recognition of a post-operative trans woman’s female gender violated Article 8 (right to respect for private life).
2. Whether preventing her from marrying a man, because she remained legally male, violated Article 12 (right to marry).
3. Whether the lack of a domestic remedy for these complaints violated Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
4. Whether the treatment complained of amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14 when read with other Convention rights.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held unanimously that the United Kingdom violated Article 8 because the continuing refusal to recognize the applicant’s acquired gender placed her in an unacceptable situation that interfered with private life in a serious and ongoing way.
- The Grand Chamber held unanimously that the United Kingdom violated Article 12 because the applicant was barred from marrying a man solely due to the State’s refusal to recognize her female gender for civil-status purposes, impairing the right to marry.
- The Court held that no separate issue arose under Article 14 in light of its findings under Articles 8 and 12.
- The Court found no violation of Article 13, reasoning that Article 13 did not require a remedy that would permit a challenge to primary legislation as such in the circumstances of the case.
- On just satisfaction, the Court awarded costs and expenses (reported as EUR 39,000) and indicated that the nature of the breach called for changes in domestic law rather than case-by-case administrative workarounds.

## Legal Principles

- Gender identity and the personal autonomy interests connected to it fall within “private life” under Article 8, and States must provide practical and effective respect for that right.
- A persistent gap between lived gender and legal status can interfere with private life when it forces disclosure, creates obstacles in work and social life, and produces legal disadvantages in areas such as pensions and documentation.
- The Convention is interpreted in light of present-day conditions; the Court may reconsider earlier authority where legal and social developments show a marked movement toward recognition of the relevant interests.
- Administrative or technical difficulties in adjusting civil-status records generally do not justify continuing an arrangement that leaves post-operative trans people without coherent legal recognition of their gender.
- Article 12 protects a real ability to marry; where the State’s definition of marriage eligibility—combined with refusal to recognize acquired gender—prevents a post-operative trans person from marrying in line with their affirmed gender, the restriction can breach Article 12.
- Article 13 requires an effective remedy in domestic law for arguable Convention claims, but it does not necessarily require a remedy capable of overturning primary legislation; the scope of Article 13 depends on the nature of the alleged violation and the domestic legal order.

## Conclusion

The European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) held that the United Kingdom’s continued refusal to legally recognize Christine Goodwin’s female gender after surgery violated Article 8 and that the resulting bar on her marriage to a man violated Article 12; it found no separate issue under Article 14 and no violation of Article 13, and it awarded costs while signaling the need for legislative change to bring domestic law into line with the Convention.


Goodwin v. United Kingdom, 22 EHRR 123, App. No. 28975/95, 2002-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. (2002)