European court of human rights (ECHR) - case of Christine Goodwin V.: the United Kingdom (U.K.)

摘要

1. The case originated in an application (no.28957/95) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a United Kingdom national, Ms Christine Goodwin ("the applicant"), on 5 June 1995. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Bindman & Partners, solicitors practising in London. The United Kingdom Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. 3. The applicant alleged violations of Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention in respect of the legal status of transsexuals in the United kingdom and particularly their treatment in the sphere of employment, social security, pensions and marriage. 4. The application was declared admissible by the Commission on 1 December 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999 in accordance with Article 5 ∮ 3, second sentence, of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Commission not having completed its examination of the case by that date. 5. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 ∮ 1 of the Rules of Court). 6. The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 ∮ 1). 7. On 11 September 2001, a Chamber of that Section, composed of the following judges: Mr J.-P. Costa, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mr P. Kuris, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mr K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and Mr K. Traja, and also of Mrs S. Dolle, Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 8. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 ∮∮ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration ofjustice, the case should be assigned to the Grand Chamber that had been constituted to hear the case of L V. the United Kingdom (application no.25680/94) (Rules 24, 43 ∮ 2 and 71). 9. The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial on the merits. In addition, third-party comments were received from Liberty, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 ∮ 2 of the Convention and Rule 61 ∮ 3). 10. A hearing in this case and the case of L V. the United Kingdom (no.25680/94) took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 March 2002 (Rule 59 ∮ 2). 11. On 3 July 2002, Mrs Tsatsa-Nikolovska and Mr Zagrebelsky who were unable to take part in further consideration of ihe case, were replaced by Mrs Mularoni and Mr Caflisch.