5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ostia Lido. 6.  At birth, the applicant was entered in the civil-status registers as male and was given the forename L. However, the applicant stated that she had always identified as female and lived in society as a woman under the forename S. For instance, her work colleagues (the applicant has worked as a civil servant since 1999) had always called her S., and in the photograph on her identity card issued in August 2000 her appearance was that of a woman. 7.  In 1999 S.V. began treatment with feminising hormones as part of the gender transition process. 8.  On 9 November 2000 she applied to the Rome District Court on the basis of section 3 of Law no. 164 of 1982, stating that she wished to complete the transition process by permanently changing her primary sexual characteristics, and sought authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. 9.  In a judgment of 10 May 2001 the District Court found that the applicant had embarked on the gender transition process after careful consideration. Having taken note of her determination the court authorised her to undergo surgery in order to adapt her primary sexual characteristics to match her female gender identity. 10.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant, while awaiting the surgery authorised by the District Court, applied to the prefect of Rome for a change of forename under Article 89 of Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000. She argued that, given that she had been undergoing a gender transition process for several years, and in view of her physical appearance, the fact that her identity papers indicated a male forename was a constant source of humiliation and embarrassment. She also asserted that the waiting period for surgery was approximately four years. 11.  In a decision of 4 July 2001 the prefect refused the applicant’s request on the grounds that, under Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000, a person’s forename had to correspond to his or her gender. In the prefect’s view, in the absence of a final court ruling ordering the change to her legal gender status for the purposes of Law no. 164 of 1982, the applicant’s forename could not be changed. 12.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court and also requested a stay of execution of the prefect’s decision. 13.  On 23 July 2001 the applicant underwent mammoplasty. On 6 September 2001 she was placed on a waiting list at Trieste University Hospital for surgery to alter her primary sexual characteristics. 14.  On 21 February 2002 the Regional Administrative Court refused to grant a stay of execution of the prefect’s decision. 15.  On 3 February 2003, while the proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court were still pending on the merits, the applicant underwent an operation to change her sexual characteristics from male to female. She subsequently applied to the Rome District Court, on an unspecified date, for legal recognition of her gender reassignment under section 3 of Law no. 164 of 1982. 16.  In a judgment of 10 October 2003 the Rome District Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered the Savona municipal authorities to alter the indication of the applicant’s gender from male to female and to change the forename L. to S. 17.  By a judgment of 6 March 2008, deposited with the registry on 17 May 2008, the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prefect’s decision of 4 July 2001. The court held that Article 89 of Presidential Decree no. 396 of 2000 concerning changes of forename was not applicable in the present case, which actually came within the scope of Law no. 164 of 1982 concerning changes to legal gender status. The court stressed in that regard that, under the terms of the latter, the amendment of the civil-status records of a transgender person had to be ordered by the court ruling on his or her gender reassignment. It therefore considered that the prefect had correctly refused the applicant’s request.
The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.