Goodwin v United Kingdom

Last updated

Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom
Decided 11 July 2002
ECLI ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0711JUD002895795
Nationality of partiesBritish

Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights on 11 July 2002. The applicant, Christine Goodwin, a United Kingdom national born in 1937, was a transgender woman. She claimed that she had problems and faced sexual harassment at work during and following her gender-affirming surgery. She also alleged that the fact that she kept the same National Insurance number meant that her employer had been able to discover that she previously worked for them under another name and sex, with resulting in embarrassment and humiliation.

Contents

The case was heard together with a separate case, I. v. United Kingdom (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2002:0711JUD002568094), also involving a British transgender woman, with judgment delivered on the same day, 11 July 2002. [1]

Complaints

Relying on Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained about her treatment in relation to employment, social security and pensions and her inability to marry. [2]

Judgment

ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights; [3] a violation of Article 12 (right to marry and to found a family);and did not find a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). It found that no separate issue had arisen under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). [4]

Reasoning

No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest had been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transgender people. Society might reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the gender/sex identity. It concluded that the fair balance that was inherent in the Convention now tilted decisively in favour of the applicant. There had, accordingly, been a failure to respect her right to private life in breach of Article 8. The Court also found no justification for barring the individual due to her being transgender from enjoying the right to marry under any circumstances. It concluded that there had been a breach of Article 12. The case-law of the Convention institutions indicated that Article 13 could not be interpreted as requiring a remedy against the state of domestic law. In the circumstances no breach of Article 13 arose. The lack of legal recognition of the change of gender of a transgender person laid at the heart of the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the Convention and had been examined under Article 8 so there was no separate issue arose under Article 14.

Reception

The government's loss of the Goodwin case was a factor in the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. [5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989) is a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and their potential exposure to the death row phenomenon violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition to the precedent established by the judgment, the judgment specifically resulted in the United States and the State of Virginia committing to not seeking the death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually extradited to the United States.

<i>Campbell v MGN Ltd</i> 2004 House of Lords decision on privacy in English law

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd[2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

In the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The exemption for the case of lawful executions has been subsequently further restricted by Protocols 6 and 13, for those parties who are also parties to those protocols.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Article 3 – Prohibition of torture

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i> and <i>R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168 is a UK labour law case, which deals with religious freedom, and the duty of an employer to let religious people have Sundays off.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lydia Foy</span> Irish transgender activist

Lydia Annice Foy is an Irish trans woman notable for leading legal challenges regarding gender recognition in Ireland. In 1992, Foy had sex reassignment surgery, and began a 20-year battle to have her birth certificate reflect her gender identity. In 2007, the Irish High Court ruled that the relevant portions of the law of the Republic of Ireland were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but by February 2013 the law had not been changed and she began new legal proceedings to enforce the 2007 decision. As of 15 July 2015, Ireland has passed the Gender Recognition Bill 2014.

Mosley v United Kingdom [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30 was a 2011 decision in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An application to the court was made by Max Mosley, the former president of the FIA, after his successful breach of confidence legal case against the News of the World. In that case, the court unanimously rejected the proposition that Article 8 required member states of the Council of Europe to legislate to prevent newspapers printing stories regarding individual private lives without first warning the individuals concerned. It instead held that it fell within each state's margin of appreciation to determine whether to legislate on that matter.

Pretty v. United Kingdom (2346/02) was a case decided by European Court of Human Rights in 2002.

Smith and Grady v UK (1999) 29 EHRR 493 was a notable decision of the European Court of Human Rights that unanimously found that the investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from HM Forces on the basis they were homosexual was a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision, which caused widespread controversy at the time led the UK to adopt a revised sexual-orientation-free Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct in January 2000. In UK law the decision is notable because the applicants' case had previously been dismissed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, who had found that the authorities' actions had not violated the principles of legality including Wednesbury unreasonableness, thus highlighting the difference in approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic courts.

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for two constituent rights: the right to marry and the right to found a family. With an explicit reference to ‘national laws governing the exercise of this right’, Article 12 raises issues as to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, and the related principle of subsidiarity most prominent in European Union Law. It has most prominently been utilised, often alongside Article 8 of the Convention, to challenge the denial of same sex marriage in the domestic law of a Contracting state.

Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:

The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

The right to family life is the right of all individuals to have their established family life respected, and to have and maintain family relationships. This right is recognised in a variety of international human rights instruments, including Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Christine Goodwin was a British transgender rights activist who played a crucial role in forcing the UK government to introduce the Gender Recognition Act 2004. She was a former bus driver who underwent sex reassignment surgery in 1990, at Charing Cross Hospital, London, before eventually challenging the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights over her inability to draw a state pension at the same age as other women. In Goodwin & I v United Kingdom the ECHR ruled that the UK had breached her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. In response the UK introduced the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in Ireland</span>

A citizen of Ireland is legally permitted to change the designation of their gender on government documents through self-determination. In 2015, Ireland was the fourth state in the world to permit such alterations to government documents. By May 2017, 230 people had been granted gender recognition certificates under the law. Section 16 of the Act entitles the holder of a gender recognition certificate to apply to have the certificate amended if there is a clerical error or an error of fact in the content of the certificate. Two such corrections have been made since commencement of the Act.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights lists the prohibited grounds against which discrimination in illegal. The text states that

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

References

  1. ↑ "I. v. the United Kingdom". ECHR. 11 July 2002.
  2. ↑ "Privacy". Hrcr.org. 11 July 2002. Retrieved 17 September 2016.
  3. ↑ Martyn Bond; Council of Europe (1 January 2010). The Council of Europe and Human Rights: An Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. p. 43. ISBN   978-92-871-6836-8.
  4. ↑ "ECHR Judgement: CASE OF CHRISTINE GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM" (PDF). ECHR. 11 July 2002.
  5. ↑ Zowie Davy (8 April 2016). Recognizing Transsexuals: Personal, Political and Medicolegal Embodiment. Routledge. p. 37. ISBN   978-1-317-07060-3.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.