Communicated on 6 February 2019<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Applications nos. 53568\/18 and 54741\/18
\nO.H. and G.H.
\nagainst Germany
\nlodged on 7 November 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The applications concern the registration of O.H., a female to male transsexual, under his former female forename as G.H.\u2019s mother in the birth register.<\/p>\n
In 2010 O.H. had changed his female forename to a male forename. In 2011 he had changed his female registration to a male registration in the public records. Subsequently, he became pregnant through self-insemination from an anonymous sperm donation, after having interrupted hormonal treatment related to gender reassignment. In 2013 he gave birth to G.H. The applicants requested that O.H. be registered as the father of G.H. in the birth register.<\/p>\n
The Berlin (Neuk\u00f6lln) authorities requested advice from the courts. On the basis of decisions of the Sch\u00f6neberg District Court, and appeal decisions of the Berlin Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Justice, the Neuk\u00f6lln Registry Office registered O.H. under his former female forename as G.H.\u2019s mother in the birth register. A subsequent complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court was unsuccessful.<\/p>\n
The applicants complained under Article 8 (family and private life), Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, and Article 3 of the Convention of the fact that O.H. was not registered under his current forename and as G.H.\u2019s father, but under his former female forename and as the child\u2019s mother. In particular, they complained of the fact that this registration fundamentally contradicted their perception of their relationship. Furthermore, they complained that the registration required both applicants to disclose frequently O.H.\u2019s transsexuality.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights under Article 8 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?<\/p>\n