European Union member states must recognise a change of first name and gender made in other countries of the bloc, the European Court of Justice has ruled.
The refusal of an EU state “to recognize and enter in the birth certificate of a national a change of first name and identity lawfully acquired in another member state (…) is contrary to EU law,” Europe’s top court said in its ruling on Friday.
The judgement is a result of a legal challenge by a British-Romanian citizen who was born a woman but changed first name and title from male to female in 2017. The trans-identified citizen went on to obtain legal recognition of his male gender identity in Britain in 2020, which had been home since 2008.
The citizen, named as Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi had obtained British citizenship in 2016, beginning the transition process in the UK and gaining a gender recognition certificate when Britain was still part of the EU.
However, when the citizen requested that the change on his birth certificate be registered by the local authorities in Romania, and new documents be produced reflecting change of first name, gender and personal identification number, the Romanian authorities would not do so. Romanian authorities declined to acknowledge the transgender citizen’s name and gender change, and said he would be required to follow the national procedure.
After the citizen’s home country would not recognise the gender recognition certificate granted in the UK, a legal challenge was brought. The European court ruled that authorities must recognise and update the national papers of people who have legally changed their gender identity in another EU member state, without additional proceedings.
“In that regard, it is irrelevant that the request for recognition and entry of the change of first name and gender identity was made … on a date on which the withdrawal from the European Union of the other Member State had already taken effect,” the court ruling said.
Hailed by transgender activists as a “monumental victory,” judges in Luxembourg ruled that Romania had broken EU law by its refusal to accept the citizen’s change of sex and name from female to male.
The landmark legal decision sets a precedent across the bloc, with the ECJ declaring that lawful name and gender changes made in other EU states had to be automatically accepted to protect EU rights to free movement and residence.
It also said that Brexit was not relevant, as Britain was still a member state during the transition period, when the citizen had been granted a gender recognition certificate.
Mirzarafie-Ahi’s lawyer said: “Today’s verdict has shown us that trans people are equal citizens of the European Union.”
“When you have rebuilt a life in another part of the European Union because you are not welcome in your own country, it is normal to ask to be treated with dignity when interacting with the authorities in your home country.”
“Legislation of a Member State that refuses to recognise and enter in the birth certificate of a national a change of first name and identity lawfully acquired in another Member State, in this case the United Kingdom, is contrary to EU law,” the ECJ said.
“This also applies where the request for recognition of that change was made after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
The Court further said: “The refusal of a Member State to recognise a change of gender identity lawfully acquired in another Member State hinders the exercise of the right to free movement and residence.”
The case will now return to the Romanian courts, which will be obliged to take the Luxembourg ruling into account in their final decision.
However, the decision will not be welcomed across all of Europe, with EU members Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia all having bans or plans to ban people from legally changing their gender identity.
Rodrigo Ballester, the head of the centre for European studies at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium think tank in Budapest described the ruling as “utterly shocking and very banal at the same time.”
“Once again, the European Court of Justice tramples over basic legal principles for ideological purposes and erodes member states’ competences through ludicrous reasonings,” Ballester said.
“Its ultimate goal is not to enforce the law, but to force further integration. Not to mention that it ignores Brexit as if it had never happened. It is no longer judicial activism, it has become ideological crusading.”