TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): And with respect to the second question, what are the practical consequences of the differences in status, in legal status between marriage and registered partnership, we acknowledged all the time that the differences are not substantial.
AP1 (Applicant): But at least one difference is very significant to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): And it's actually a right that she would lose.
AP1 (Applicant): She had.
AP1 (Applicant): And she would lose if the applicant and her spouse would accept turning marriage into registered partnership, namely the right to adopt jointly, which they would lose under a registered partnership regime.
AP1 (Applicant): With respect to the third question regarding the rainbow table, the so-called rainbow table published by the ILGA Europe, which we invoked in our request for referral to the Green New Deal, our request for referral to the Green New Deal, we do not take responsibility for the information in that table.
AP1 (Applicant): But basically, ILGA Europe is known as a very reliable, possibly the most reliable source of information with respect to legal rights or legal status of LGBT people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in Europe.
AP1 (Applicant): In any event, this information is more or less hard to come by.
AP1 (Applicant): Because on the one hand, not all countries specifically regulate in detail the legal status of transgender people.
AP1 (Applicant): But basically, with respect to those countries that do not have regulations on the effects of a sex change on pre-existing marriages, unless there is a specific provision in the law that requires the transgender person to divorce, we may assume that the marriage in that case will survive, because any reason for the dissolution of marriage has to be specifically provided in the law.
AP1 (Applicant): And this is the situation in many countries is fluid.
AP1 (Applicant): But anyways, as I iterated in my initial address to the courts, only six countries currently have, six countries and parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have specific divorce requirement books.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, with respect to questions asked by Judge Shio, the applicant has contracted a religious marriage on 27th of July, 1996.
AP1 (Applicant): Actually, in Finland, as far as I know, the priest also acts as a civil officer for the purposes of recording marriages in the population registry.
AP1 (Applicant): So yes, she did have a religious marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Concerning the question regarding the specific consequences of or disadvantages that the applicant has to suffer as a result of the incongruence between her personal documents and her appearance, we have detailed these consequences in our written submissions in the court.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the most important consequences has to do with the fact that the applicant is prevented to fully do his job.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant works as a customs officer, which job had involved lots of traveling prior to his gender reassignment.
AP1 (Applicant): But because the incongruence that is immediately visible in her passport between the gendered information, within the gendered information included in the passport, she has had to reduce her traveling substantially since undergoing gender reassignment treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): And this is very, actually, it is a very important element of her job specification.
AP1 (Applicant): Concerning then other consequences, we have discussed and the government has challenged the daily difficulties that the applicant faces.
AP1 (Applicant): For example, when traveling using public transport, she does use public transport every day going to work.
AP1 (Applicant): And these difficulties, they may seem trivial, but they're quite important and they're illustrative of the very real impact that this incongruence has on the applicant's daily life, leading to embarrassment on a daily basis.
AP1 (Applicant): So basically, when using the passport, the public transport, there are frequent checks.
AP1 (Applicant): The ticket inspectors check her pass to see her traveling document.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is immediately obvious when they scan the document that the information doesn't match.
AP1 (Applicant): And actually, on a few occasions, the ticket inspector has accused her that she had a false document, that she presented a false document.
AP1 (Applicant): And this has led to specific litigation before the ombudsman, Finnish ombudsman.
AP1 (Applicant): She has filed a complaint to the Finnish ombudsman alleging exactly this fact, exactly this unpleasant daily realities of her life.
AP1 (Applicant): And we ask for permission from the court to submit these documents at the earliest opportunity.
AP1 (Applicant): These are just illustrative of the sort of problems that she faces.
AP1 (Applicant): She cannot, the applicant cannot change her passport to separate from changing her gender.
AP1 (Applicant): So there is not, it's not, there isn't a different process whereby she can only change her passport so that the information contained, the gendered information contained in that passport is, aligns itself or corresponds to her appearance.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, with respect to Judge Lemens' question, the paragraph that you cited is consensual different.
AP1 (Applicant): So it's not as far as I remember.
AP1 (Applicant): It does not, it is not part of our Article 14 submission.
AP1 (Applicant): And there we simply want to emphasize that some countries have disconnected the regulations concerning transgender marriages from the regulations concerning homosexuality.
AP1 (Applicant): And there we simply want to emphasize that some countries have disconnected the regulations concerning transgender marriages from regulations concerning same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): So for example, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.
AP1 (Applicant): Germany following a judgment by the Constitutional Court.
AP1 (Applicant): Austria following a judgment by the High Administrative Court, if I'm not mistaken.
AP1 (Applicant): And Switzerland following a change, legislative change.
AP1 (Applicant): And that does not regulate transgender marriages differently, allowing marriage to subsist past legal gender recognition.
AP1 (Applicant): And not, which does not necessarily endanger marriage as a traditional marriage, the traditional institution of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): So this observation which I made was outside our submissions to Article 14, which we continue to argue.
AP1 (Applicant): And we fully, I wish to reiterate that yes, the applicant and her spouse are in a similarly situated position with non-transgender couples.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, I would like to address one of the aspects of my esteemed colleague from the government, namely their observations concerning just satisfaction costs and expenses.
AP1 (Applicant): And I would like to ask for permission from the Court for us to submit the documentation related to our travel to Strasbourg for this grand chamber, which we were not able to submit previously.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. You have two weeks to submit this document which will of course be communicated to the Governor.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr Kosonen.
GR1 (Government): Concerning the first question by Chatsviravela, I would like to give the floor to my advisor, Madam Sallis-Eagler.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, as regards the questions presented by Judge Päivi Hirvelä,
GR2 (Government): the first question was about the effects on the child on the population register.
GR2 (Government): The Finnish government replies that no changes into the remarks made on the population register would be made if the legal gender was changed in the applicant's case.
GR2 (Government): If a person was marked as a child's father in the population register and subsequently that person would change gender into female, the marking would be still father in the child's records.
GR2 (Government): The second question concerned recognition of same-sex marriages concluded abroad.
GR2 (Government): For example, if in another country or in a Nordic country where same-sex marriage is allowed, would move to Finland, how they would be treated.
GR2 (Government): According to the Finnish Marriage Act, recognition of marriages concluded abroad can only be recognized if they are concluded between a man and a woman, and there are no exceptions in the Nordic Convention on this matter.
GR2 (Government): However, there is a practice which states that if the couple so agrees, they can be recognized as a registered partnership in the population register and thereby get their relationship recognized also legally in Finland.
GR2 (Government): However, as you can see, the situation is similar to the Transsexual Act, whereas the relationship status is turned from marriage into registered partnership in this case.
GR2 (Government): Thirdly, I would like to make a mark on the adoption issue.
GR2 (Government): It is true that this is one of the differences between marriage and registered partnership.
GR2 (Government): However, we would like to point out that the applicant is soon to turn 50, and this age limit in itself would prevent adoption procedures in Finland due to the applicant's age, not due to her gender.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, I should start the question
GR1 (Government): concerning passports and travel cards.
GR1 (Government): The passport, according to the Act on the Population Information System and Certificate Services of the Population Register Center, according to those, that information, the personal identity code is an individual number that distinguishes persons with the same date of birth from each other and shows the gender of the holder.
GR1 (Government): And therefore, distinguishing between an official gender and the personal identity code is not, according to the current legislation in Finland, possible.
GR1 (Government): According to the Passport Act, both the gender and the person's personal identity code are information which is included in the passport.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, entering a new gender before the person has obtained a new personal identity code and following the legal gender recognition would result in two deconflicting gender entries in the passport, as I said before.
GR1 (Government): I would like to ask you, as regards to the question of Article 14 by Judge Lemons, whether the two situations are similar or different.
GR1 (Government): The government reiterates its view that cisgender individuals are not in a similar situation as the applicant, as they are not applying for this legal confirmation of a changed gender, which is only applicable to transgender persons.
GR1 (Government): And the government also recalls that a registered partnership would provide the same legal protection to the applicant and her family currently enjoined by them, taking into account the circumstances of the present case.
GR1 (Government): And concerning still the travel card, there are various cards.
GR1 (Government): There are, let's say, playing cards, and anybody can use such, and then personal cards.
GR1 (Government): And personal cards are usually used by those persons who go to work all the time or something like that.
GR1 (Government): And for instance, myself, I'm using that.
GR1 (Government): A personal card includes information on its holder, and it's for the reason, of course, that if somebody, if this kind of card has been stolen from somebody and there is a different sex person, for instance, having these cards in a tram, for instance, of course the inspector has to ask what is the situation and these cases might happen.
GR1 (Government): But the inspectors, these inspections, they are indeed occasional and a couple of times per year, perhaps, you might see them.
GR1 (Government): Of course, it might differ where you are moving.
GR1 (Government): And as regards the inspectors, they are trained to various situations, for instance, these kind of situations.
GR1 (Government): And they try to handle the situation with all delicacy it requires.
GR1 (Government): And as regards the applicant's reference to federal constitutional court and its judgment, and that has also been in your observations, the government notes that according to that judgment, the government notes that according to that judgment, a married transgender person could not, according to German law at the time, obtain legal gender recognition without getting divorced, resulting in the termination of all legal safeguards of their marriage.
GR1 (Government): However, that court came to the conclusion that it is left to the legislator to ensure that the community of responsibility between a married transsexual or his or her spouse can continue and not to be terminated.
GR1 (Government): And the constitutional court said that as such, the legislature could provide for the conversion of the marriage into a registered partnership, effectively from the date of legal recognition of the gender status of the transsexual spouse.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The court will now deliberate on the merits and the judgment will be delivered later.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Please be seated.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing in the case of LB versus Hungary.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 7 June 2016 under Article 34 of the convention by a Hungarian national, Mr. LB.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fourth section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of court.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It was communicated to the government on 18 October 2017.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): A chamber of the fourth section delivered its judgment on 12 January 2021.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It declared the applicant's complaint concerning Article 8 of the convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): It held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the convention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): On 8 April 2021, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the convention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): And a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 31 May 2021.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by their agent, Mr. Zoltán Tallódi, assisted by Ms. Mónika Weller,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): co-agent and Ms. Hajnalka Vizi, Adviser.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Dániel B. Kiss
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and Mr. Dániel A. Karsai, counsel,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Eszter Mihály, Ms. Evelyn Frank,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and Mr. János Nagy, advisors.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Karsai for the applicant will speak first,
Robert Spano (JudgeP): and then Mr. Tallódi for the government.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Karsai, you have the floor.
AP1 (Applicant): Honorable European Court of Human Rights, honorable judges of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): The respondent state created a shaming list, and the applicant was included in it.
AP1 (Applicant): The tax defaulters list contains the name and home address of those who have tax areas.
AP1 (Applicant): The list is accessible on the tax authority's website to everyone without any restrictions.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's personal data were made public by the respondent state without his consent.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, the respondent state failed to provide any safeguard mechanism against unnecessary use and republication of the applicant's personal data.
AP1 (Applicant): The respondent state also failed to convincingly show that the tax defaulters list effectively serves any public interest.
AP1 (Applicant): The name of the inglorious list, ados lista in Hungarian, has clearly a defamatory and shameful meaning.
AP1 (Applicant): Being on the list means in the eye of the public that the applicant is morally inferior, not just in the context of taxation, but in general.
AP1 (Applicant): The shame is multiplied by the fact that the list is refreshed every three months, and the Hungarian press always reports about it in a rather derogatory manner.
AP1 (Applicant): This huge media attention is a manifestation of the public's thirst for information about the private life of others, and as such, a form of sensationalism, even voyeurism.
AP1 (Applicant): To add soul to injury, the applicant's name and home address were pinned into an interactive map that was created by a leading media outlet.
AP1 (Applicant): In our speech, we will first address the admissibility issues.
AP1 (Applicant): We will argue that Article 8 is applicable to the present case in the context of the protection of reputation and the protection of personal data.
AP1 (Applicant): We will then shortly analyze the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
AP1 (Applicant): We are of the firm view that the respondent state did not point out any legal avenues that could have provided remedy to the applicant's situation.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the merits of the case, we will show that there has been an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8, and these interferences in certain aspects were not even in accordance with the domestic law.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the most interesting questions of the case is the existence of the legitimate aim of the interference.
AP1 (Applicant): Does the end always justify the means?
AP1 (Applicant): We will argue that the respondent state overstepped its margin of appreciation in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, the respondent state itself acknowledged that it did not intend to fulfill any public aim with the creation of the tax defaulters list.
AP1 (Applicant): Lastly, we will address the issue of necessity and proportionality of the interference.
AP1 (Applicant): We will show that the tax defaulters list represents an unnecessary and disproportionate restriction.
AP1 (Applicant): It is even more so since we can easily identify less inclusive measures for similar situations in the Hungary legal system.
AP1 (Applicant): We will conclude, and we humbly invite the Honorable Court to reach the same outcome, that the Hungarian tax defaulters list in its present form cannot be sustained in a way that is in compliance with the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): First, we will analyze the issue of admissibility.
AP1 (Applicant): The first question of admissibility is whether the right to protection of reputation can be relied on in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the government, there was no loss of reputation since the list had no intention of shaming.
AP1 (Applicant): We cannot endorse this view.
AP1 (Applicant): The term list of tax defaulters is commonly used in Hungary.
AP1 (Applicant): It is even used by the tax authority itself in the name of the internet link of the list.
AP1 (Applicant): This term and its connotations clearly cause prejudice and serious damage to the applicant's reputation.
AP1 (Applicant): Being on the official public list of tax debtors is very damaging.
AP1 (Applicant): We need to raise the almost rhetorical question.
AP1 (Applicant): Why did the Hungarian state create this list, if not for shaming?
AP1 (Applicant): We do not see any other rational answer.
AP1 (Applicant): The government also alleges that the creation of the list serves the protection of the rights of third persons.
AP1 (Applicant): It means one thing.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the government, the applicant is such a person that others should be protected from.
AP1 (Applicant): It is seriously offensive and unnecessarily stigmatizing well beyond the realm of taxation.
AP1 (Applicant): The list suggests that the involved individuals are unreliable and should not be trusted in any walk of life.
AP1 (Applicant): The consequences of the list undermine the applicant's personal integrity in general.
AP1 (Applicant): This obviously affects the applicant's reputation in a serious manner.
AP1 (Applicant): The next question concerning the applicability of the convention is that whether Articulate can come into play in the context of data protection.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the tax authority published the applicant's name, home address, and that he has a substantial amount of tax debt.
AP1 (Applicant): Later on, the national map of tax defaulters was published by a major Hungarian online media outlet.
AP1 (Applicant): Lastly, the applicant was put on the archive list of tax debtors.
AP1 (Applicant): This personal data is available on the website of the tax authority even today.
AP1 (Applicant): All personal data disclosed by the tax authority reveals certain aspects of the applicant's private life, despite the allegation of the government stating that it only concerns the applicant's status as a businessman.
AP1 (Applicant): It is the constant case law of the court that data concerning professional life is often intricately linked to private life.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicant can rely on the protection of the convention under Articulate when his personal data were published without proper safeguards against misuse.
AP1 (Applicant): The publication of the applicant's home address could make him and also his family a target of harassment.
AP1 (Applicant): The publication of this information for an unlimited period of time and without the applicant's consent raises an issue under Article 8 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Now we turn to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
AP1 (Applicant): We are of the view that the government failed to refer to any remedy that is sufficiently certain not only in theory, but in practice for the applicant's case.
AP1 (Applicant): The government first argued that the applicant could have requested the erasure of his personal data from the tax authority.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Data Protection Act did not allow requests for the erasure in the case of mandatory data processing.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's case, the data processing was based on the Tax Administration Act.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicant was not in the position to request the erasure of his personal data.
AP1 (Applicant): Consequently, the government's related arguments shall be dismissed.
AP1 (Applicant): The government also claimed that the applicant should have challenged the impugned regulation before the constitutional court.
AP1 (Applicant): These allegations are completely unsubstantiated.
AP1 (Applicant): We address this question in detail in our written submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): We do not repeat it here.
AP1 (Applicant): However, concerning the constitutional complaint, the government also states that in 2018, a new Tax Administration Act came into force.
AP1 (Applicant): This new act calls for a new tax administration act and this new act contains textually the same rules concerning the list as the previous act.
AP1 (Applicant): The constitutional court held in several admissibility decisions that in such cases, the legal regulation is in fact in force from the moment it was first enacted.
AP1 (Applicant): Consequently, the constitutional court counts the 180-day deadline for the submission of the constitutional complaint from that point.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicant's related constitutional complaint would have been declared time-barred.
AP1 (Applicant): In sum, the constitutional complaint mechanism shall not be regarded as an effective remedy.
AP1 (Applicant): The next question under exhaustion of domestic remedies is the allegedly effective legal avenues against the press reporting regularly about the tax defaulters list.
AP1 (Applicant): The government argued that on the basis of the Data Protection Act, the applicant could have requested the erasure or the blocking of the publication of his personal data.
AP1 (Applicant): The government could not support this argument with any case law showing that these legal avenues were effective ones.
AP1 (Applicant): The government could only invoke two judgments which were not even delivered by the Curia, the Hungarian Supreme Court, but only by lower courts.
AP1 (Applicant): However, lower court judgments shall not be regarded as precedent.