I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in A.H. AND OTHERS v. GERMANY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2023-04-04
  • Communication date: 2020-06-22
  • Application number(s): 7246/20
  • Country:   DEU
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 14
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded)
    No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.682279
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The application concerns the Berlin Administrative authorities’ refusal to register A.H., a male to female transsexual, as mother of L.D.H.
in the birth register.
In 2012 A.H. changed sex from male to female and changed from male registration to female registration in the public records.
In 2015, after a sperm donation from A.H., G.H.
became pregnant and gave birth to L.D.H.
In the same year A.H. and G.H.
entered into a registered civil partnership and requested that they both be registered as mothers of L.D.H.
The Berlin authorities registered G.H.
as the mother of L.D.H., but refused to register A.H. as mother because domestic law defined the mother as the person who had given birth to the child and did not provide for the possibility to acknowledge maternity by any other person.
A.H. had only the possibility to be registered as L.D.H.’s father, under her former male forename.
The applicants’ appeals to the civil courts and a subsequent constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court were to no avail.
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention of the fact that A.H. was not registered under her current female forename as L.D.H.’s mother but could only be registered under her former male forename as the child’s father.
This fundamentally contradicted their perception of their relationships and required G.H.
and L.D.H.
to disclose frequently A.H.’s transsexuality.
The applicants further complained under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that they were discriminated against, in particular, as regards A.H., in comparison to a female-to-male transsexual who could, according to the Federal Court of Justice, acknowledge paternity of his partner’s child in the absence of any biological descent, and regarding G.H., in comparison to women who lived together with a man who could likewise acknowledge paternity without any biological descent.

Judgment