Posted on 11. July 2015 in Country Information, Legal Gender Recognition

The Administrative District Court of Kiev has ruled on July 10, 2015 that forced involuntary surgery as a consequence of legal gender recognition does not match the requirements of Ukrainian legislation.

The claimant, a trans woman, who had undergone orchiectomy (removal of testicals), had been denied the recognition by the special Commission on the Issues of Change (Correction) of Gender Identification (“the State Evaluation Commission”) in Kiev. Basis for the denial was their interpretation of p. 2.1.2 of “Provisions about the  Commission” (part of the Order of Ministry of Health No. 60 ) and position of the Institute of Urology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In written correspondence with NGO „Insight” dated March 13, 2013, the Institute of Urology noted that the minimal required surgeries for transgender people seeking legal gender recognition was “removal of sexual organs and mammary glands” for transgender men and “removal of sexual organs (testicles and penis)” for transgender women.

This denial was appealed through the Administrative District Court of Kiev.

On July 10, 2015 the  Court granted the application claims, – the denial has been recognized as unlawful; the court ordered the Commission to give the complainant a medical certificate, necessary to amend the birth certificate and other documents.

The Court notes in the text of the decision, that the wrongful denial of a medical certificate… “leads to a significant violation of the rights and interests of the complainant, in particular, the possibility of further changes in birth certificate and other identity documents in accordance with the actual gender of the complainant”…

The Court applied the provisions of Article 3, 23, 32 of the Constitution of Ukraine; Part 1 of Article 8, Part 2 of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Art. 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and took into account cases of the European Court of Human Rights (case of Christine Goodwin (7; I. v UK, 57) (91; I. v UK, 71) (93 ; I. v UK, 73).

Source: Ukrainian NGO “Insight”; Edits TGEU