THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 60796/16 X against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President, Darian Pavli, Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,

and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 October 2016,

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

Having regard to the comments submitted by Transgender Europe, ILGA-Europe, Transgender Legal Defence Project, Human Rights Centre “Memorial” and ADF International, which had been given leave to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, X., is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in St Petersburg. 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 Ms K.A. Kirichenko , a lawyer practising in Geneva.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3 . The applicant complained under Article 8 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 female name.

4 . On 23 February 2017 the above complaint was communicated to the Government. Subsequently, the Government and the applicant have submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.

5 . According to the submissions, 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.

6 . Prior to 13 October 2016 the applicant had neither been officially diagnosed with “transsexualism” , nor had she undergone any medical gender transition procedure. However, for many years she had referred to herself as “Anna” and used feminine inflective morphemes in her speech. She wore women ’ s clothes and make-up, and had a feminine hairstyle. Her relatives and colleagues addressed her as “Anna”.

7 . In 2015 the applicant attempted to change her male name registered at birth to a female name without changing her gender marker in the official documents. She attempted to do so in the generally available change of name procedure. On 9 June 2016 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 the applicant had failed to provide the relevant proof of medical gender transition.

8 . On 7 July 2017 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that in 2017, shortly after lodging the present application, the applicant has gone through gender reassignment surgery and afterwards 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 in 2017, that is prior to being diagnosed with “transsexualism” and undergoing any medical 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.

10 . It is apparent that presently the issue that the applicant had complained about no longer exists and that she had been 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, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, considers that the matter has been resolved, and it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 January 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Olga Chernishova Georges Ravarani Deputy Registrar President