TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): And so the police contacted the office and they proposed to the office to consider giving the applicants the victim status.
GR2 (Government): As regards to multidisciplinary body, what I would like to say, we were referring to the multidisciplinary measures that were given as assistance to the applicant, not the authority as such.
GR2 (Government): But what I want to say that there is no multidisciplinary body where we would have also a police in this body that would be in any way or prosecutor for that matter involved into a process of giving the victim, the potential victim of trafficking, prior to the criminal proceedings, give the status of a victim.
GR2 (Government): I hope I answered your question.
GR2 (Government): This is an administrative proceedings completely without any connection to the criminal proceedings.
GR2 (Government): Well, if you allow me, Honorable President, I would just like to make a couple of concluding remarks, if time allows.
GR2 (Government): What I would like to say that, once again, applicant did not raise any issues regarding the effectiveness of investigation, nor the conduction of criminal proceedings in her case.
GR2 (Government): That the applicant was recognized as a victim of trafficking in administrative proceedings by the administrative body.
GR2 (Government): That she was offered with food, shelter, and financial aid.
GR2 (Government): She was given psychological and legal aid.
GR2 (Government): She was not secondary victimized in the course of criminal proceedings.
GR2 (Government): When she gave her statement, the accused was escorted out of the courtroom.
GR2 (Government): All the evidence proposed by the applicant in the criminal proceedings were admitted.
GR2 (Government): The applicant was never deprived of her liberty.
GR2 (Government): The applicant was the one who rented the named apartment.
GR2 (Government): She was the one who paid the rent for the apartment.
GR2 (Government): She even came back to pay the rent death to the landlord.
GR2 (Government): The applicant was never deprived of her documents or her personal belongings.
GR2 (Government): She had a mobile phone of her own all the time.
GR2 (Government): And it was not determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant was ever forced to anything.
GR2 (Government): It was also not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was ever in a situation compared to slavery.
GR2 (Government): So the applicant was never reduced to an object.
GR2 (Government): In these circumstances, we see no room for application of Article 4 of the Convention.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing. I thank the parties for their submissions
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): and answers to the court's questions. The court will now deliberate. The judgment will
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): be delivered later. The parties will be informed of the date of delivery. I declare the hearing
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): closed.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Hämäläinen against Finland.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Until recently, before the applicant decided to waive the anonymity granted to her, the case was called H against Finland.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged on the 8th of July, 2009, with the court under Article 34 of the convention by a Finnish national, Heli Maarit Hannele Hämäläinen.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 13th of November, 2012, a chamber of the fourth section delivered its judgment in the case, finding that there had been no violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the convention, and that there was no need to examine the case under Article 12 of the convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 13th of February, 2013, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the grand chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the convention, and the panel of the grand chamber accepted the request on the 29th of April, 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 26th of August, 2013, the president of the grand chamber granted leave to the following non-governmental organizations to submit written comments as third parties by virtue of Rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of the court, Amnesty International, Transgender Europe, and acting jointly, the Transgender Law Center, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, as well as the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The Finnish government are represented by their agent, Mr. Arto Kosonen,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Council.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): He is assisted by Ms. Salla Silvola
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): from the Ministry of Justice, Ms. Maija Faurie
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and Ms. Katja Fokin from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Constantin Cojocariu,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): counsel, and Ms. Vesselina Vandova, advisor.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome the following groups who are visiting the court, the group of Polish judges and prosecutors, the group of Belgian judges, the Supreme Court of Norway, the registry of the German Federal Constitutional Court, the group of Ukrainian judges, and a group of future judges from Luxembourg.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Polish has been authorized for the benefit of the delegation of Polish judges and prosecutors attending this hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The representative of the applicant, Mr. Cojocariu,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): will speak first, and then Mr. Kosonen for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Cojocariu.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable judges, Mrs. Hamalainen, the applicant,
AP1 (Applicant): is a transsexual woman, a person whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex assigned to her at birth, and who had undertaken gender reassignment surgery.
AP1 (Applicant): Currently, although Mrs. Hamalainen
AP1 (Applicant): has lived for many years openly as a woman and has been allowed to change her first name to a female name, her personal documents continue to identify her as a man.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen requested that her personal documents
AP1 (Applicant): be changed in order to reflect her gender identity, a right that is recognized under Finnish and international law.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the authorities refused to change her documents unless she agreed to end her marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen and her spouse have been happily
AP1 (Applicant): married for 17 years and have an 11-year-old daughter.
AP1 (Applicant): They are determined to keep their marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): The authorities therefore forced Mrs. Hamalainen
AP1 (Applicant): to choose between two rights which would not be mutually exclusive, and both of which are enjoyed by anybody without question, the right to live in accordance with one's self-identified gender identity and the right to protection of one's existing marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): The government claims that compulsory divorce legislation is necessary in order to preserve marriage as an institution reserved for different sex couples.
AP1 (Applicant): It makes before the court the paradoxical proposal that the class of marriages, those involving transgender people, have to be destroyed so that the institution of marriage can be protected.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we will demonstrate that the forced divorce requirement is a disproportionate and unjustified interference with Mrs. Hamalainen's rights.
AP1 (Applicant): Transgender marriages may and have been distinguished for legal purposes from same-sex marriages in different jurisdictions.
AP1 (Applicant): A favorable ruling in this case would not necessarily entail extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.
AP1 (Applicant): It follows that our complaint is not as such concerned with the issue of same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen only seeks to protect her marriage
AP1 (Applicant): and at the same time live in accordance with her self-identified gender identity.
AP1 (Applicant): I will focus mostly on the balancing test operated to determine compliance with Article 8.
AP1 (Applicant): This includes, on the one hand, the interference with Mrs. Hamalainen's right to family life
AP1 (Applicant): and to legal gender recognition, as well as the public interest in ensuring that viable marriages are protected.
AP1 (Applicant): And on the other hand, the state's interest to safeguard the traditional institution of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, I will also discuss Mrs. Hamalainen's claims
AP1 (Applicant): under Articles 12 and 14 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): I will talk first about the applicant's right to family life and the impact of the forced divorce requirement on her immediate family.
AP1 (Applicant): Marriage is specifically protected under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The Court has emphasized that marriage has a special status in our societies, warranting differential treatment under the law.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, marriage remains, I quote, an institution which is widely accepted as conferring a special status on those who enter it, unquote, and is characterized by the existence of a public undertaking, carrying with it a body of rights and obligations of contractual nature.
AP1 (Applicant): Marriages that are valid must be protected in the interest of legal certainty, described by the Court as an underlying value of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The Court has attached significance in the past to many of the attributes that characterize Mrs. Hamalainen's marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Its longstanding character, the presence of a child, mutual commitment, and support.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen and her spouse's marriage,
AP1 (Applicant): therefore, benefits from a high level of protection under the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): And any interference must be subject to strict scrutiny.
AP1 (Applicant): The government insisted that Mrs. Hamalainen is not
AP1 (Applicant): technically required to divorce her spouse.
AP1 (Applicant): As a matter of fact, Mrs. Hamalainen
AP1 (Applicant): can only achieve legal gender recognition if she terminates her marriage by divorce or by turning it into a registered partnership.
AP1 (Applicant): Either way, marriage is terminated.
AP1 (Applicant): It ceases to exist.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen and her spouse do not
AP1 (Applicant): have a free choice on the matter, as the state makes access to legal gender recognition, the legal recognition of her gender reassignment, dependent on the termination of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamalainen wishes to be recognized as a woman
AP1 (Applicant): and stayed married at the same time.
AP1 (Applicant): But this is not possible under Finnish law.
AP1 (Applicant): The government also claimed that the legal relationship continues as a registered partnership in the applicants' case, with only a change of title to the relationship and only minor changes to the content thereof.
AP1 (Applicant): This factor is immaterial, as Mrs. Hamalainen and her spouse
AP1 (Applicant): categorically oppose the forceful termination of their marriage, regardless of what the relationship is called afterwards.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's claim is also disingenuous, as it reduces the significance of marriage to the legal benefits attached to it.
AP1 (Applicant): It is on the social, religious, and personal consequences of marriage that we would like to focus this Court's attention.
AP1 (Applicant): Heli Hamalainen and her spouse have lived together in marriage during most of their adult lives.
AP1 (Applicant): And they have a daughter.
AP1 (Applicant): As deeply religious persons, they strongly believe in the biblical dictum that, I quote, what God has joined together, let man not separate.
AP1 (Applicant): They want to live together until the end of their lives and are not willing, under any circumstances, to relinquish their marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): In addition, registered partnership as an institution reserved for same-sex couples that is very similar to marriage but is not marriage is a marker of second-class citizenship.
AP1 (Applicant): This arrangement, based on separate but equal doctrine, is inherently unequal.
AP1 (Applicant): The government asserted that legal distinctions between marriage and registered partnership are, I quote, minor.
AP1 (Applicant): That is not true.
AP1 (Applicant): The most significant distinction is that registered partners are not allowed to adopt jointly.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a right that Mrs. Hamalainen and her spouse
AP1 (Applicant): currently have and which they would have to forego if they accepted to terminate their marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): The Grand Chamber has actually acknowledged that this is the right to adopt by homosexuals is a serious question affecting the interpretation and application of the convention, having heard two cases recently on the matter, EB versus France and X and others versus Austria.
AP1 (Applicant): We call upon the court to consider the impact of the forced divorce requirement on Mrs. Hamalainen's
AP1 (Applicant): family.
AP1 (Applicant): Her spouse and child suffer from the intolerable strain placed on the family life by Mrs. Hamalainen's inability
AP1 (Applicant): to secure legal gender recognition for many years.
AP1 (Applicant): In particular, Mrs. Hamalainen's spouse,
AP1 (Applicant): whose consent is required for the convention to register partnership to take place, is forced to make an impossible choice, which is at odds with her right to family.
AP1 (Applicant): Should she choose to support Mrs. Hamalainen's desire
AP1 (Applicant): to live in accordance with her self-identified gender identity, she would have to agree to a registered partnership, thus terminating their marriage with all negative consequences that flow from that.
AP1 (Applicant): If, however, she refuses to have their marriage converted to a registered partnership, she would perhaps risk alienating Mrs. Hamalainen, who
AP1 (Applicant): would in these circumstances not be able to achieve legal gender recognition, and their relationship may suffer as a result.
AP1 (Applicant): State interference with marriage that was valid ab initio, as exemplified in this case, is a unique and extraordinary measure.
AP1 (Applicant): The only other recent example we can think of that dates back to the racist policies of Nazi Germany, which adopted the legislation providing incentives to Aryan spouses in mixed marriages to divorce from their Jewish partner.
AP1 (Applicant): Marriages that are valid, existing, and intact benefit from a presumption of legality and an expectation of protection by the state from any interference.
AP1 (Applicant): The divorce requirement also goes against trends across Europe, including the simplification of divorce procedures, with a focus on mutual consent and personal choice, reflecting modern notions of marriage as a personal and private relationship with very little opportunity for interference by the state.
AP1 (Applicant): I will now turn to the unjustified intrusion of Finland into Mrs. Hamalainen's private life in breach of Article VIII
AP1 (Applicant): of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Gender identity is a fundamental aspect of human personality, specifically protected under Article VIII.
AP1 (Applicant): In Van Kook versus Germany, this court stated that freedom to define oneself as a female or a male is, I quote, one of the most basic essential of self-determination.
AP1 (Applicant): And transsexuals have a right to self-determination, which is one aspect of their right to private life.
AP1 (Applicant): By conditioning legal gender recognition on divorce, the Finnish Transsexual Act interfered substantially with Mrs. Hamalainen's private life.
AP1 (Applicant): Having undertaken legal gender reassignment surgery, she has assumed the appearance of a woman, yet her documents identify her as a man.
AP1 (Applicant): This causes substantial difficulties on a daily basis, from using the identity card in the public transport to booking holidays or business trips abroad.
AP1 (Applicant): In Christine Goodwin versus the United Kingdom, this court has acknowledged that lack of legal gender recognition constituted a serious interference with private life, arising where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of human personality, which may engender feelings of vulnerability, humiliation, and anxiety.
AP1 (Applicant): Unless the government abandons the divorce requirement, Mrs. Hamalainen is likely to live her entire life
AP1 (Applicant): with documents that do not reflect her gender identity, as she is not willing, under any circumstances, to forgo her marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): According to this course, jurisprudence states have a duty of consistency with respect to regulations concerning the legal status of transgender people.
AP1 (Applicant): Administrative and legal practices on legal gender recognition must be coherent and consistent.
AP1 (Applicant): In the present case, Finland has permitted and facilitated Mrs. Hamalainen gender reassignment treatment,
AP1 (Applicant): and has allowed her to change her first name.
AP1 (Applicant): In light of the position this court has adopted previously in cases such as Christine Woodwin versus United Kingdom, it appears illogical to deny Mrs. Hamalainen legal gender
AP1 (Applicant): recognition at this juncture, leaving her stranded in the territory between the two sexes for a potentially indeterminate period.
AP1 (Applicant): According to information submitted by third-party intervener Transgender Europe, as well as from our own findings, a broad trend exists in Europe towards the simplification of legal gender recognition procedures.
AP1 (Applicant): This trend includes eliminating unduly intrusive requirements, such as compulsory medical treatment or dissolution of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Currently, only a small minority of Council of Europe states have an explicit forced divorce requirement in their legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): Six countries, besides Finland, also Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, and Turkey, plus parts of the United Kingdom.
AP1 (Applicant): Of these countries, Hungary has adopted the legislation abolishing the divorce requirement, expected to come into force in 2014, whereas Scotland plans to legalize same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): In Italy, the Supreme Administrative Court has recently referred the divorce requirement under Italian law to the country's constitutional court.
AP1 (Applicant): Recent developments in Finland are part of this European-wide trend.
AP1 (Applicant): In March 2012, the Finnish Ombudsman for Equality stated the divorce prerequisite for the purposes of legal gender recognition may not be considered compatible with fundamental rights in the area of family life.
AP1 (Applicant): In June 2012, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights called on Finland to abolish the divorce requirement for the legal recognition of gender reassignment.
AP1 (Applicant): In response, the Finnish government established very recently, at the beginning of September 2013, a working group tasked with looking at the possibility to revise the Transsexual Act by removing, amongst others, the requirements of forced divorce and infertility.
AP1 (Applicant): These developments also indicate that, contrary to the government's assertions, the protection of the institution of marriage does not require the rigid imposition of forced divorce requirement when one's spouse applies for legal gender recognition.
AP1 (Applicant): The state argued, on the other hand, that the divorce requirement was necessary in order to preserve the traditional institution of marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): We reiterate that we do not seek the legalization of same-sex marriage in this case, which debate is beyond the scope of this case.
AP1 (Applicant): Our position is that forced divorce is unnecessary and disproportionate means to achieve the state's objective.
AP1 (Applicant): The government failed to substantiate its argument that transgender marriage would necessarily lead to equal marriage rights.
AP1 (Applicant): Transgender marriages may be and have been distinguished from same-sex marriage for the purposes of the law in countries such as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
AP1 (Applicant): The situation in the United States is also relevant.
AP1 (Applicant): Although many states in the United States have clearly stated legislation against same-sex marriage, and while nearly every state permits the legal recognition of a change in gender, no state or federal law requires or allows the automatic dissolution of a valid marriage simply because one's spouse has transitioned to a different gender.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamerlein claims a right to stay married,
AP1 (Applicant): an already acquired right, and not the right to contract a new marriage, a prospective right.
AP1 (Applicant): Should she be allowed to stay married, she would still not be allowed to contract a new same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's objective to preserve marriage as an institution reserved for different sex couples is also undermined as things currently stand.
AP1 (Applicant): Mrs. Hamerlein and her spouse already
AP1 (Applicant): create the public appearance of same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Since they are legally married, then Mrs. Hamerlein
AP1 (Applicant): presents as a woman.
AP1 (Applicant): In addition, removing the divorce requirement from the law would only have had a marginal impact on the public perception of marriage as a whole, considering the tiny number of viable transgender marriages, well under 1% according to some data.
AP1 (Applicant): The government has made a rather abstract statement that I quote, prevailing, longstanding, and deep-seated cultural, religious, and moral conceptions oppose the legal recognition of transgender marriages.
AP1 (Applicant): However, public opinion polls conducted recently in Finland show consistently increasing support for same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): In December 2006, 45% of the population supported same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): In August 2010, 54%.
AP1 (Applicant): And more recently, in March 2013, 58% of the population in Finland supported same-sex marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): Same-sex marriage may soon become a reality in Finland in any event, removing the underlying objection to the legal recognition of transgender marriages.
AP1 (Applicant): In February 2013, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Finnish Parliament narrowly voted on a draft same-sex marriage bill.
AP1 (Applicant): The same bill has been reintroduced in the parliament recently and is awaiting a vote in the plenary.
AP1 (Applicant): While there may well be some religious and moral opposition to same-sex marriage in Finland, it is not clear that this extends to transgender marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): This is because equally strong religious and ethical principles shared by Mrs. Hamelin and her spouse
AP1 (Applicant): themselves surrender abhorrent to any interference with marriage seen as a lifelong partnership.
AP1 (Applicant): I also want to refer briefly to the margin of appreciation available to states to regulate legal gender recognition procedures.
AP1 (Applicant): The classic position adopted by the court, this court in cases such as Christine Goodwin versus United Kingdom, has been that the state has discretion to decide the requirements that individuals have to fulfill in order to secure the legal recognition of their gender identity.
AP1 (Applicant): We submit that this position is out of step with the court's jurisprudence more generally and trends across Europe concerning transgender people and the right to marry.
AP1 (Applicant): The margin of appreciation cannot be as wide as to allow the state to deny fundamental rights, such as the right to family life or the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity.