X and Y v Romania: A Partial Solution to an Impossible Dilemma? - Nomos eLibrary

OER Osteuropa Recht / X and Y v Romania: A Partial Solution to an Impossible Dilemma?

OER Osteuropa Recht / X and Y v Romania: A Partial Solution to an Impossible Dilemma?

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- I–II Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis I–II
- 437–437 EDITORIAL 437–437
- 438–567 AUFSÄTZE 438–567
  - 438–452 X and Y v Romania: A Partial Solution to an Impossible Dilemma? Alexandra Bob Alexandra Bob 438–452
  - 453–463 The Beneficiaries of the Right to Marry under Romanian Law Codruța Guzei-Mangu Codruța Guzei-Mangu 453–463
  - 464–483 Familienrecht Russlands: Triumph der „traditionellen Werte“ Natascha Kravchuk Natascha Kravchuk 464–483
  - 484–490 Mutterschaft im Lichte medizinisch unterstützter Fortpflanzung im polnischen Recht Bartłomiej Swaczyna Bartłomiej Swaczyna 484–490
  - 491–504 Recent Changes in Hungarian Family Law: Registered Partners, Adoption, Joint Parental Custody and Alternating Residence Orsolya Szeibert Orsolya Szeibert 491–504
  - 505–523 Digitalisation of the Tax Risk Management System in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation Javid Damirov Javid Damirov 505–523
  - 524–555 Das Bundesstaatsprinzip in Russland und seine Aushöhlung durch die Verfassungsreform von 2020 Alexander Gorskiy Alexander Gorskiy 524–555
  - 556–567 Ludwig Heinrich v. Jakob und der „Criminal-Codex für das Russische Reich“ von 1813 Martin Paul Waßmer, Sergey A. Markuntsov Martin Paul Waßmer, Sergey A. Markuntsov 556–567
- 568–574 AUS DEM SCHRIFTTUM 568–574
- 575–576 AUS JUSTIZ UND RECHTSPRECHUNG IN OSTEUROPA 575–576
- 577–578 AUS DER RECHTSPRECHUNG DES EGMR 577–578
- 579–579 IMPRESSUM 579–579
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

OER Osteuropa Recht , page 438 - 452

X and Y v Romania: A Partial Solution to an Impossible Dilemma?

Autoren

Alexandra Bob

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/0030-6444-2021-4-438
- ISSN: 0030-6444
- ISSN online: 2366-6730
Abstract

The issue of recognising the effects of gender affirmation is a controversial subject that the European Court of Human Rights often faces as a result of States’ reluctance in addressing such matter. This paper analyses the recent judgment of the European Court in the case of X and Y v. Romania, in which, by unanimously declaring the requirement of mandatory surgery for gender affirmation as contrary to Article 8 ECHR, the Court significantly increases the protection and autonomy of transgender people and takes an extremely important and positive step forward in respect to transgender rights in Europe.
Share