THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23872/19 A.S. against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 January 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov , Peeter Roosma , judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2019,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, A. S., is a Russian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Yekaterinburg. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Mr I.F. Lemzyakov , residing in Yekaterinburg.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of her right to respect for her private life on account of the authorities ’ refusal to change her male name registered at birth to a gender neutral name of her choosing. The applicant also referred to Article 6 § 1, complaining about unfairness of the domestic proceedings.

4 . On 20 September 2019 the above complaint was communicated to the Government. Subsequently, the Government and the applicant have submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

5 . The applicant is a transgender woman (male-to-female transgender person). She was born genetically male and her gender was registered as “male”. However, she currently identifies herself as female. The applicant submitted that prior to 25 April 2019 (date of lodging of the application) she had been officially diagnosed with “transsexualism ”, but had not yet undergone any medical gender transition procedure.

6 . On 2 March 2017 the applicant lodged a claim, seeking to change her male name registered at birth to a gender neutral “Amari Jay Nightingale” (name, patronymic and surname respectively), which would not indicate her gender grammatically or semantically. At the time the applicant had already identified herself as female, and had a feminine appearance, but had not yet undergone legal or medical gender transition. She therefore attempted to change her name in the generally available procedure.

7 . On 8 November 2018 her claim was refused by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The courts noted that grammatical rules of the Russian language clearly distinguish masculine and feminine names, and that traditionally a person ’ s name reflects his or her gender identity. The name chosen by the applicant did not allow to identify the applicant as a person of a masculine gender, which could cause uncertainty for the third parties. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that the refusal to change name had not restricted access to change of gender procedure prescribed by law.

8 . On 13 December 2019 the Government submitted that right before lodging the present application, the applicant has gone through gender transition and on 12 March 2019, that is more than a month prior to lodging of her application, changed her identity documents to another name of her choosing. On 24 February 2020 the applicant ’ s representative confirmed that the applicant has changed her identity documents to the name of her choice. The applicant, however, maintained her complaint before the Court.

THE LAW

9 . The Court notes that between 2017 and 2018, that is prior to being diagnosed with “transsexualism” and undergoing any medical or legal gender transition procedure, the applicant attempted to change her name in the generally available change of name procedure. However, her claim was refused. Subsequently, when the applicant went through medical and legal gender transition, the special procedure had become available to her and she was able to change her identity documents to the name of her choice. Nothing indicates that she had encountered any obstacles in these proceedings. The Court also notes that the name that the applicant had chosen and uses at present is completely different from the one that she demanded at the time of lodging her application.

10 . It is apparent from the above that the issue that the applicant had complained about no longer exists and it had ceased to exist even prior to lodging of the present application, as the applicant was able to change her name once she had recourse to an appropriate national procedure.

11 . In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France ( dec. ) [GC], no. 76642/01, § 32, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV) , the Court considers that the matter has been resolved and that the application in this part must be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

12 . Regarding the applicant ’ s remaining complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court, having considered all the material in its possession, finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in part concerning the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2021 .

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President