TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The government emphasizes in this connection that registered partnership is recognized as an official legal institution, as stated in the government proposal for the Act on Registered Partnerships 2000.
GR1 (Government): According to that proposal, the aim of the act was to give same-sex couples the possibility to officially recognize their partnership and to give them the same rights and duties as married couples, with minor exceptions.
GR1 (Government): Your court, too, has found civil partnership to be comparable to marriage.
GR1 (Government): For instance, in Burden against the United Kingdom, your court stated that the absence of a legally binding agreement between the applicants, who are siblings living together, renders their relationship of cohabitation fundamentally different to that of a married or a civil partnership couple.
GR1 (Government): The only differences between marriage and registered partnership under the Finnish legislation relate to family name of the spouse under the NAMES Act, the establishment of paternity on the basis of marriage under the Paternity Act, and on joint external adoption under the Adoption Act.
GR1 (Government): The differences according to the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee in 2002 were not considered as unconstitutional as they fell within the margin of appreciation left to the legislator.
GR1 (Government): As regards the differences between the legal implications of marriage on the one hand and registered partnerships on the other hand, the government notes what was held by your court in Salk and Kopf versus Austria in 2010 on the matter.
GR1 (Government): In that case, your court observed that the registered partnership gave the applicants a possibility to obtain a legal status equal or similar to marriage in many respects.
GR1 (Government): While your court noted some substantial differences to remain in respect of parental rights, it was of the view that this corresponded on the whole to the trend in other member states.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, your court held that it was not called upon in the present case to examine each of these differences.
GR1 (Government): In that case, of course, each of these differences, and for instance, as the applicants had not claimed that they were directly affected by the remaining restrictions concerning artificial insemination or adoption, it would go beyond the scope of the application to examine whether those differences were justified.
GR1 (Government): And this is also the case in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Similarly, in the present case, the applicant has not shown to be directly affected by the restrictions of the registered partnership vis-a-vis marriage.
GR1 (Government): Rather, the applicant is able to keep her family name and her legal relationship with her child does not change, as the government will demonstrate.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the government notes that the change of gender is not a ground for annulment of paternity according to the Paternity Act.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, as the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee noted in statement on the proposed act on the confirmation of sex of a transsexual 2002, that the rights and obligations pertaining to parenthood do not depend on the gender of the parent.
GR1 (Government): According to the Paternity Act, paternity is established either when a child is born into marriage, where the presumption of paternity applies, or by confirming the paternity afterwards.
GR1 (Government): Whatever mechanism has been used to confirm the parent-child relationship, the official change of a gender has no effect on parenthood obligation to provide maintenance, care, visiting rights, or inheritance rights.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, as mentioned earlier, so far 50 marriages have been turned into registered partnerships and 60 registered partnerships into marriages.
GR1 (Government): According to local register offices, in nine of these 31 cases, the spouses had children together.
GR1 (Government): None of these cases involved changes to the affiliation between a child and a parent.
GR1 (Government): The government concludes that the affiliation between the applicant and her child doesn't change if the marriage is turned into a registered partnership.
GR1 (Government): The same applies if a registered partnership is turned into a marriage.
GR1 (Government): The paternity of the applicant towards her child has already been established.
GR1 (Government): There would be no legal change in the child's position, which is considered to be in the child's best interests.
GR1 (Government): The government is therefore of the view that it's not disproportionate to turn the applicant's marriage into a registered partnership, as the change has no concrete legal implications for the applicant or her child in the circumstances of the present phase.
GR1 (Government): As regards the stigma to her spouse alleged by the applicant, the government reiterates that the relevant legislation is based on gender.
GR1 (Government): And as was stated in the separate, which means concurring opinion, according to your court, opinion in the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, giving her consent does not imply by law that the spouse is at the same time admitting that she's homosexual.
GR1 (Government): According to the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee 2002, it was out of proportion to demand a divorce when people want to continue their relationship after the confirmation of the new gender.
GR1 (Government): And therefore, a provision was introduced which allowed the continuation of legal relationship, albeit in a different form.
GR1 (Government): The consent of the spouse for the change was, however, deemed necessary by the committee due to the significance of the issue.
GR1 (Government): The Parliamentary Social Affairs and Health Committee in 2002 reaffirmed this stand.
GR1 (Government): In her submissions, the applicant refers to the difficulties which she experiences in her everyday life with documents revealing her legal male gender and claims that she finds herself in a more precarious position than that of the applicant in the Paris versus United Kingdom, who was able to obtain a passport in her female gender prior to legal gender recognition.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the system in Finland is inherently different to that of the United Kingdom, as the Finnish identity number which is used in official documents, such as a passport, as a means of identification automatically includes the specification of gender.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, entering the new gender, for instance, into a passport before the person has obtained a new personal number would result in two conflicting gender entries in the document in question.
GR1 (Government): While the government acknowledges that the applicant experiences some difficulties, it is not convinced of the extent of the difficulties claimed by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): For instance, the applicant claims in her written submissions and also here that she is forced to disclose her transsexual condition each time she uses the municipal public transport system.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that in major cities in Finland, the municipal transport system is automated, and the inspection of personal information only takes place occasionally in connection with ticket controls.
GR1 (Government): And now concerning margin of appreciation.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the margin of appreciation, the applicant argues that in this case, it should be narrow, particularly considering that the fundamental aspects of her existence and identity are at stake.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the applicant argues that the margin of appreciation cannot extend as far as to allow states to terminate a marriage at their discretion.
GR1 (Government): The government reiterates that the Finnish legislation leaves the possibility of divorce at the applicant's own discretion.
GR1 (Government): Also, your court concluded in the cases of Paris versus United Kingdom and R&F versus United Kingdom that it fell within the state's margin of appreciation how to regulate the effects of the change of gender on pre-existing marriages.
GR1 (Government): In Salkenkopf versus Austria, your court stated that the question whether or not to allow a same-sex marriage is left to the regulation by the national law of the contracting states.
GR1 (Government): In that connection, your court observed that marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, your court stated that it should not rush a substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities who are the best place to assess and respond to the need of society.
GR1 (Government): The applicant refers to Christian Goodwin versus United Kingdom and to the trends in Europe towards removing the divorce requirement in the legal gender recognition context.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the situation in the present case is far from that of the Christian Goodwin versus United Kingdom, as in that case the applicant was not able to get her gender recognized at all.
GR1 (Government): In Slump, however, a few years later in SH and others, the case also referred by the applicant, your court held that where there was no consensus with the member states from the Council of Europe, either as to the importance of the interest at stake or as to the best means of protecting it, particularly where the case rises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin being wider.
GR1 (Government): The applicant alleges that there is a clear trend at the international and national level towards simplifying the gender recognition process by allowing transgender marriages to subsist post-legal gender recognition or by legalizing the same-sex marriage.
GR1 (Government): According to the information submitted by the applicant, 13 out of 45 contracting states currently allow transgender marriages to subsist post-legal gender recognition.
GR1 (Government): Of these 13 countries, three countries allow transgender marriages, while at the same time they do not extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
GR1 (Government): The remaining 10 countries have extended same-sex marriage rights to same-sex couples, which the government reiterates is not the object of the application.
GR1 (Government): The government concludes that there is still no European consensus on allowing transgender marriages to subsist post-legal gender recognition or allowing same-sex marriage.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the margin of appreciation in this case should be wider and should fall with the state's margin of appreciation how to regulate the effects of the change of gender on the pre-existing marriages.
GR1 (Government): The government acknowledges the comparative overview provided by Transgender Europe on the legal situation in the contracting parties regarding the legal gender recognition for transgender persons and legal institutes for the same-sex couples.
GR1 (Government): Transgender Europe does not elaborate further on the situation regarding Finland, but places Finland incorrectly in the same category as the Czech Republic and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
GR1 (Government): According to the information, the civil code in the Czech Republic states that marriage and civil partnership cease to exist if trans partner is granted legal gender recognition.
GR1 (Government): In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the situation today, according to Transgender Europe, demands determination of the marriage or civil partnership as a prerequisite for granting legal gender recognition.
GR1 (Government): This is, however, not the case in Finland, where obligatory divorce is not required by legislation and legal relationships are allowed to subsist, albeit under different title.
GR1 (Government): As to the judgment of the Italian constitutional court, contrary to the Italian system, the system adopted in Finland does not impose an automatic ex legge divorce on married couples as a consequence of the change of sex of one of the spouses.
GR1 (Government): In fact, the Italian court specifically refers in its judgment to the chamber judgment, this chamber judgment in the present case, stating that the Italian system does not impose an automatic ex legge divorce on married couples.
GR1 (Government): The court also states, stating that the affirmation differences between the Finnish and Italian legal orders are the key components rendering the Italian provision in question unconstitutional.
GR1 (Government): In Finland, as the applicant has pointed out, there is a working group which has been working on the issue for a long time.
GR1 (Government): The government notes that the review and possible subsequent legislative reforms form part of the state's continuous efforts to improve its legislation beyond the requirements of the convention.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the government notes that there is no violation of Article 8.
GR1 (Government): As regards Article 14, the government notes firstly that the chamber, the government note emphasizes the discretion of the parliament that refers to what was stated by the Supreme Administrative Court in that question of transforming the marriage institution into gender-neutral one.
GR1 (Government): It is to be solved by an act of parliament rather than making case by case allowances regardless of how you such cases may be.
GR1 (Government): Your court, too, has stated in parry against you and Kingdom and R and F versus UK that the contracting state cannot be required to make allowances for the small number of marriages where both partners wish to continue, notwithstanding the change of gender, one of them.
GR1 (Government): However, the chamber observed that the issue in the present case does not as such involve any issue under Article 12 which guarantees right to marry, but the issue at stake rather concerns the consequences of the applicant's change of gender for the existing marriage between her and her spouse, which was already examined under Article 4.
GR1 (Government): The government shares in this respect the chamber's view.
GR1 (Government): As regards finally, violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, the applicant alleges that she has been discriminated on the basis of gender identity when compared to cisgender individuals in breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 and developed, which is not the case here.
GR1 (Government): We are not examining that now.
GR1 (Government): In her submissions, she now claims that her relationship with her spouse and child receives less legal protection when compared to cisgender married marriages.
GR1 (Government): She also claims to be discriminated in so far as her right to legal recognition of a gender is concerned.
GR1 (Government): The government notes, firstly, concerning this that the applicant cannot have been treated differently from cisgender persons on the basis of her gender identity because the procedure in question is an essence and integral part of the confirmation of the applicant's gender, which is now only applicable to transgender persons.
GR1 (Government): Further, the government notes that cisgender individuals are not in a similar situation as the applicant because they are not applying for the change of their gender.
GR1 (Government): And secondly, as regards for the legal protection, the government refers to what has been stated earlier and reiterates that the 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): Were your court to have a different view, the government notes that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between, on the one hand, requiring the applicant's marriage to be turned automatically upon consent of her spouse in the registered partnership, while at the same time ensuring the legal continuity and stability of the applicant's relationship within the limits of Finnish legislation, which currently does not provide for the same sex marriage, and on the other hand, preserving marriage as a legal institution between a man and woman.
GR1 (Government): So there is no violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 either.
GR1 (Government): And finally, concerning Article 41 claims by the applicant very quickly, if there will be found a violation on some part of the law, the government notes that the applicant should be given a compensation for pecuniary damages which should not exceed 3,000 euros.
GR1 (Government): And as regards the proceedings before the chamber, the country refers to its further observations and costs and expenses and notes that the chamber should not exceed 1,300 euros.
GR1 (Government): But of course, that 3,000 euros covers everything.
GR1 (Government): And what was said before the chamber does not apply here.
GR1 (Government): As regards the cost of expenses, the government has already, well, that was 1,300 euros.
GR1 (Government): The government accepts that.
GR1 (Government): And as regards cost and expenses, before your Court, the government notes that in the counsel's invoice, the undertaken measures have not been itemized in detail.
GR1 (Government): The same applies to travel expenses of the applicant's representatives.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the applicant's cost and expenses do not appear to include such documentation as is required by the rules of the Court.
GR1 (Government): The government leaves to your Court consideration whether this is the case and what will be the consequences.
GR1 (Government): Should they be rejected and to what extent?
GR1 (Government): In the government's view, the government should not be at the cost of expenses of the travel of the applicant's family, and this should also be requested or rejected, this claim.
GR1 (Government): And finally, at any rate, in the government's view, if compensation, some compensation costs and expenses will be allowed by your Court, the claim is excessive in its quantum and total amount of compensation should not exceed 9,000 euros, inclusive of the tax.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Kosonen.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Are there any questions? Judge Hirvelä.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions to both parties.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And to the applicant. First, as a clarification of the facts and this question, since the
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): applicant herself raised this aspect. When the applicant filled the application for confirmation
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): of gender, the requirements were not fulfilled, since there was not the consent of the spouse.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And my question is, did the spouse object to the legal recognition of the current gender of the applicant?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): My second question is the following, and this again, since the applicant herself raised this question. It's quite true that there are certain differences between marriage and
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): same-sex partnership in Finland. The establishment of paternity on the basis of marriage, adoption
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): right outside the family, and name of the spouse. And my question is, would these differences
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): have any practical effect to the applicant's life, taking into account, for example, that there is age limit for adoption outside the family for everyone, and the applicant's child was born in wedlock, and the parenthood and paternity does not change if the marriage is converted to same-sex partnership.
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And my last third question to the applicant concerns the statistical information she refers to. The applicant in her referral requested to the Grand Chamber refers to the Rainbow
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): Index, and that in that was said that 24 states transgender persons are permitted to remain married. My question is, what is the basis for this interpretation? Does it base on the
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): idea that the states where there are no regulations at all for this situation have permitted same-sex marriages?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And then I have two questions to the government. My question is, what effect does the turning
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): marriage into same-sex partnership have in the population register to the child born in wedlock, born in marriage? Does it change something in his or her information in the
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): population register? Will it mean that he or she is born out of wedlock, or if not born
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): out of wedlock, will there be some other change in his or her status in that respect?
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): And then I have a bit hypothetical question. Since same-sex marriages are permitted in
Päivi Hirvelä (Judge): the other Nordic states, and it might be quite possible that the same-sex marriage couple might move permanently to Finland, where same-sex marriages are not possible, how would they be registered into the population register? As a married couple or as a same-sex partnership?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Sajó.
András Sajó (Judge): May I ask the applicants two facts-related questions?
András Sajó (Judge): First, there was reference to religious convictions, and I would like to know whether they contracted a religious marriage, and if so, when.
András Sajó (Judge): And secondly, I see in the various applications and observations references to certain disadvantages of the current status.
András Sajó (Judge): And I would like to have more information on this.
András Sajó (Judge): I understand that you cannot change the number as long as you are married.
András Sajó (Judge): I still have difficulties understanding the specific consequences.
András Sajó (Judge): You referred to a travel card and also a passport problem.
András Sajó (Judge): Is there no way to solve this problem?
András Sajó (Judge): Is there no way to put in the passport the gender you would like to have maintaining the number?
András Sajó (Judge): And are there any other consequences of the current status that are not mentioned here?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Judge Sajó. Any other questions?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I would like to ask a small question about Article 14.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): We have heard and we could read a lot about an argument of the applicant stating that there is here an unequal treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): The applicant says that there are similar situations.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): The government denies that there are similar situations to make a comparison.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): But in the observations of the applicant, and more specifically in paragraph 60 of the observations, it is also said that the two situations are sufficiently different in order to justify distinct regulation.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I would like to ask the applicant to explain what is meant by this, because suddenly we have here different situations.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Which situations could be meant here?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And could we also have the government views on this?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Lemmens.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): We will have a break of 20 minutes.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Please be seated, the hearing is resumed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Cojocariu, please.
AP1 (Applicant): First, I will take Judge Hervé's questions.
AP1 (Applicant): To the fact whether the applicant's spouse has objected or her attitude to this whole process.
AP1 (Applicant): So the applicant's spouse has objected before the magistrates of the courts in domestic proceedings in this case to having her marriage turned into registered partnership.
AP1 (Applicant): And her objection is mainly due to her religious beliefs, religious and personal beliefs that have to do with the sanctity of marriage and inviolability of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant strongly supports, well, the applicant's spouse strongly supports her wife, the applicant in this case, in the process of transition.