Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:657
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Summary C-43/24 – 1 
Case C-43/24 [Shipov] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
23 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 January 2024 
Appellant in cassation: 
K.M.H. 
Respondent in cassation: 
Obshtina Stara Zagora 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Compatibility with EU law of a binding interpretation of national legislation of a 
Member State which rules out any possibility of amending entries concerning the 
gender, understood only as the biological sex, and the name of a particular person 
contained in his or her civil status documents, in the case where that person states 
that he or she is transsexual 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of EU law in accordance with Article 267 TFEU 
 
i The name of this case is fictitious and not the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IN A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-43/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do the principles of the equality of Union citizens and freedom of 
movement enshrined in Article 9 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and 
in Articles 8 and 21 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU), and reinforced in Article 7 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for 
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, preclude national 
legislation of a Member State which rules out any possibility of amending the 
entry concerning gender, name and identification number (EGN) contained in the 
civil status documents of an applicant who states that he or she is transsexual? 
2. Do the principles of the equality of Union citizens and freedom of 
movement enshrined in Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in 
Article 8 and Article 21 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the prohibition of discrimination 
based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation laid down in Article 10 TFEU, which are reinforced in Article 7 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and 
the principle of an effective remedy, preclude national case-law (in casu, 
Interpretative Decision No 2/2023 of the Obshto sabranie na grazhdanskata 
kolegia [(General Assembly of Civil Chambers)] of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad 
[(Supreme Court of Cassation)]) to the effect that the material law applicable in 
the territory of a Member State of the European Union does not provide for any 
possibility of changing the gender, name and identification number recorded in the 
civil status documents of an applicant who states that he or she is transsexual, 
thereby placing him or her in a position different from that in which he or she 
would be in another Member State under whose case-law the opposite is the case? 
Is it permissible for national case-law, on the basis of religious values and moral 
principles, not to permit a change of gender identity unless it is required by 
certain – intersex – persons for medical reasons? 
Is it permissible for national case-law, on the basis of religious values and moral 
principles, to permit a change of gender for medical reasons only in certain cases 
and for certain (intersex) persons, but not in other cases of a change of gender 
identity for other, different medical reasons? 
3. Does the obligation of the Member States of the European Union to 
recognise a person’s civil status as established in another Member State under the 
law of that State, which is recognised in the case-law of the European Court of 
Justice (in the judgments in Cases C-673/16 and C-490/20) in relation to the 
application of Directive 2004/38/EC and Article 21(1) TFEU, also apply in 
relation to gender as an essential element of the civil status entry, and does a 
change of gender, established in another Member State, on the part of a person 
SHIPOV 
 
3 
who also has Bulgarian nationality, require that fact to be recorded in the 
corresponding registers of the Republic of Bulgaria? 
4. Is a binding interpretation of the [Bulgarian] constitution by a judgment of 
the Konstitutsionen sad (Bulgarian Constitutional Court) to the effect that the term 
‘gender’ is to be understood exclusively in the biological sense, permissible in the 
light of the right to a fair trial arising from the Charter and the ECHR; is that 
interpretation compatible with the requirements of EU law; and is it capable of 
constituting a legal impediment to the registration of a change of gender? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on  
Treaty on the European Union (TEU), in particular Article 9 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 8, 
10, 21 and 267 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in 
particular Article 7 
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the 
principle of equal treatment of men and women as regards access to employment, 
vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (‘Directive 
76/207/EEC’) 
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and 
reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation 
(EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 
72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 
93/96/EEC (‘Directive 2004/38/ЕC’) 
Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 
2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal 
treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation 
(‘Directive 2006/54/ЕC’) 
Judgments of the Court of Justice relied on: 
– Razzouk and Beydoun v Commission, 75/82 and 117/82, ECLI:EU:C:1984:116 
– Defrenne, 149/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:130 
– P v S, С-13/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:170 
– Grzelczyk, C-184/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:458 
– Coman and Others, C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IN A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-43/24 
 
4  
– Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, С-490/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008 
Provisions of international law relied on 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 
(‘ECHR’), in particular Articles 8, 9 and 14 
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member 
states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or 
gender identity of 31 March 2010 (adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the 
Council of Europe) 
Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: 
– 2048 (2015) on ‘Discrimination against transgender people in Europe’ of 
22 April 2015 
– 1728 (2010), entitled ‘Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and 
gender identity’ of 29 April 2010 
Report on discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against 
individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity (A/H[RC]/19/41) 
of 17 November 2011 
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg relied 
on: 
– Judgment of 25 March 1992, B v. France (application no. 13343/87) 
– Judgment of 9 July 2020, Y. T. v. Bulgaria (application no. 41701/16) 
– Judgment of 27 September 2022, P. H. v. Bulgaria (application no. 46509/20) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, ‘the 
Constitution’), in particular Articles 4, 6, 32 and 57 
Judgment of the Konstutsionen sad (Constitutional Court) No 15 of 26 October 
2021 in Constitutional Law Case No 6/21; 
Grazhdanskoprotsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure), Articles 127, 146, 
280, 288, 292, 293, 546, 547 and 628 to 633 
Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code), Article 128 
SHIPOV 
 
5 
Zakon za grazhdanskata registratsia (Law on the Civil Status Register, ‘the 
ZGR’), in particular Articles 1 to 5, 8, 9, 12 to 14, 19, 42, 45, 73 to 75, 83, 100 
and 101 
Zakon za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (Law on protection against discrimination), in 
particular Articles 1, 2, 4 and 6 und Paragraphs 1, point 1, and 17 of the 
Additional Provisions 
Zakon za balgarskite lichni dokumenti (Law on Bulgarian identity documents), 
Article 9 
Zakon za sadebnata vlast (Law on the constitution of the courts), in particular 
Article 130 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Under the Bulgarian Law on the Civil Status Register, a birth certificate must be 
issued within a certain period after the birth of every child in Bulgaria. This must 
contain the particulars listed in detail in that law, in particular the name, 
identification number, sex and nationality of the child (Article 45). The first name 
of each person is chosen by that person’s parents and communicated in writing to 
the registrar at the time when the birth certificate is issued (Article 12). In 
accordance with Article 19 of that law, a change of the first name, patronymic or 
family name is to be authorised by the court on written application by the person 
concerned, in particular where essential circumstances make this necessary. Under 
that law, a change to the entries concerning civil status contained in civil status 
documents which have already been issued must take place by way of judicial or 
administrative procedure (Article 73). 
2 On the basis of the latter two provisions, K.M.H applied to the Rayonen sad 
(District Court), Stara Zagora (Bulgaria), to have it established by court judgment 
that he is of the female sex and to authorise a change to the entries concerning his 
gender and his name in his birth certificate. 
3 K.M.H. was born in Obshtina Stara Zagora (municipality of Stara Zagora), 
Bulgaria, on 7 August 1990. On 10 August 1990, the administrative authority of 
that municipality issued a birth certificate for K.M.H. recording him as being a 
person of the male sex. Although born with male sexual characteristics, K.M.H. 
always felt himself to be a woman in terms appearance, behaviour, perception, 
emotions and conduct. Even in earliest childhood, he was not interested in toys 
considered to be boys’ toys, and, during puberty, began to adopt women’s 
hairstyles, use make-up, wear women’s clothes and engage in activities typical of 
women. He has felt sexually attracted to men since his youth. K.M.H. behaved 
like a woman, dressed like a woman and felt like a woman, but met with a lack of 
understanding from his parents and the other members of his family. K.M.H. is 
recorded as being a person of the male sex in the identity card issued by the 
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Ministry of Internal Affairs, MVR), Stara 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IN A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-43/24 
 
6  
Zagora. Since his appearance and his behaviour do not tally with the entry in the 
official identity documents relating to him, he struggles to find work. He is 
currently living in Italy and has a long-term partner who pays for his keep. He has 
started hormone therapy and wishes to undergo gender reassignment surgery, a 
process which also entails a change of civil status. A change of gender and name 
would help him to overcome the problems he encounters on a daily basis and the 
difficulties he faces when looking for work. K.M.H. considers it to be his human 
right to live a fulfilled life in harmony with himself. His wish to change his gender 
is serious and irrefutable. 
4 In the proceedings at first instance, opinions were obtained from a Bulgarian 
expert in endocrinology, metabolic diseases and andrology, and an Italian 
psychologist. The wish of the person concerned to complete the clinical and 
therapeutic procedure for full male-to-female transition was confirmed. He was 
diagnosed as having gender identity dystrophy (disorder) and difficulties with 
social interaction and relationships. In those proceedings, the court also 
commissioned a comprehensive report from two experts, a psychiatrist and a 
psychologist, who confirmed the applicant’s transsexualism, in that he has a wish 
to be perceived as belonging to the opposite sex which is accompanied by feelings 
of distress on account of his anatomical sex. The report established that the person 
under assessment is not suffering from any physical or mental illnesses, only a 
gender identity disorder. It makes clear that transsexualism is not a mental illness. 
Transsexualism arises during the embryo’s sexual development in the womb. 
People with transsexualism are forced to live in constant distress and in conflict 
both with their own anatomy and with society. 
5 By judgment of 28 February 2018, the Rayonen sad (District Court), Stara Zagora, 
dismissed K.M.H.’s application as unfounded. It stated that, although the 
applicant has transsexualism, there is no legal basis in Bulgarian law for granting 
his application. In Bulgarian law, there are no provisions, criteria and conditions 
in accordance with or under which transsexual persons can successfully apply to 
change the gender entry in their birth certificate. The law provides for a procedure 
for changing civil status details in civil status documents which have already been 
issued, but not a procedure for changing the facts on the basis of which those 
details are entered. Objectively, Bulgarian law does not provide for any possibility 
of determining gender in any way other than by reference to primary sexual 
characteristics, in particular, by reference to psychological gender as a sense of 
belonging to a particular gender. There is no definition of the term 
‘transsexualism’ for legal purposes. The gaps in Bulgarian material and 
procedural law cannot be closed by the direct application of Article 8 ECHR, even 
though the latter forms part of domestic law. 
6 K.M.H. appealed to the Okrazhen sad (Regional Court), Stara Zagora, which, on 
15 June 2018, confirmed the judgment at first instance. The appeal court stated 
that civil status registration includes all of the particulars which distinguish a 
person from other persons in society and in his or her family in his or her capacity 
as the holder of subjective rights. Those particulars, including the name and the 
SHIPOV 
 
7 
sex of the person concerned, are reproduced in the registers of civil status 
documents and in the population registers. The gender of a natural person is 
determined at birth by reference to his or her primary sexual characteristics. Under 
Bulgarian law, ‘gender’ is to be understood as referring to ‘biological’ sex rather 
than ‘psychological’ gender, and the conditions for a change of gender are not laid 
down in law. For that reason, it is not possible to authorise a change of gender 
unless this is necessary on account of a physical change. The legal provisions 
contained in the Law on the Civil Status Register are perfectly clear and leave no 
room for any other interpretation. In those circumstances, there are no grounds for 
authorising a change to the civil status particulars contained in the applicant’s 
birth certificate. 
7 K.M.H. lodged an appeal in cassation against the judgment on appeal. The 
Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, ‘the VKS’) allowed the 
appeal in cassation in relation to the following questions: (i) Is there an 
infringement of Bulgarian law in the case where the court seised refuses to 
authorise a legal change to the civil status particulars concerning ‘gender’ 
contained in a person’s birth certificate which is applied for on account of 
transsexualism, on the ground that there is no law providing for such a change? 
(ii) Is a prior surgical intervention in relation to the external sexual characteristics 
of the person concerned necessary in order for an application for a legal change to 
the gender originally recorded for that person to be capable of being successful? 
By judgment of 28 June 2019, the VKS decided that transsexual persons cannot be 
subjected against their will to an obligation to undergo a surgical intervention to 
change their body as a condition for changing their gender. In accordance with the 
case-law of the ECtHR, the right to respect for private and family life includes the 
possibility for transsexual persons to change their gender. The State is therefore 
required to ensure respect for those rights and to prevent unjustified interference 
with the exercise thereof, since the determination of a person’s gender, name, 
sexual orientation and sex life form part of the private life protected by Article 8 
ECHR. Notwithstanding the absence of any relevant national legislation, the 
principle of respect for private and family life requires the court to examine on a 
case-by-case basis whether the material conditions for a change of gender as the 
prerequisite for a legal change to the civil status particulars concerning ‘gender’ in 
a person’s birth certificate are met, so that the necessary appropriate balance 
between the public interest and the private interest can be struck. The VKS 
referred the case back to the appeal court for reconsideration, directing it to gather 
new evidence. 
8 On reconsidering the case, the Okrazhen sad (Regional Court), Stara Zagora, 
followed the binding directions from the VKS. On 21 November 2019, however, 
the appeal court confirmed the original judgment at first instance to the effect that 
the gender of a new-born person is determined at birth by reference to that 
person’s primary sexual characteristics – his or her biological sex. In the present 
case, the person concerned is seeking to have the individualising characteristic of 
his ‘gender’ changed on account of his own inner perception of belonging to the 
female sex. However, gender is a biological rather than a social category and is 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IN A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-43/24 
 
8  
therefore dependent not on a personal decision but on anatomy and physiology. 
The court reiterates the finding that the Bulgarian Law on the Civil Status Register 
does not provide for a procedure for registering another, new, different type of 
gender, including so-called psychological gender, in the birth certificate. In these 
proceedings, a change of gender is possible only after a physical change. From a 
physiological point of view, the person concerned is clearly and unambiguously of 
the male sex, notwithstanding his inner identification with the opposite sex. For 
those reasons, the court confirms that the application by the person concerned to 
change the particulars concerning his gender and name in his birth certificate is 
unfounded. 
9 The applicant brought an appeal in cassation against the judgment on appeal. The 
VKS found that the relevant case-law is contradictory, stayed the proceedings and 
proposed to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers (‘the OSGK’) of the VKS 
that it adopt an interpretative decision. Interpretative Decision No 2/2020 was 
therefore adopted on 20 February 2023. Thereafter, the VKS reopened the 
proceedings in the present case and allowed the appeal in cassation to proceed, on 
account of a contradiction with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (in particular with the judgment in P v S, С-13/94, 
ECLI:EU:C:1996:170), in relation to the following legal questions: (а) Do natural 
persons have the right to determine their own identity, including the particular 
gender to which they belong? (b) Does the court’s refusal to order a change to the 
gender, name and identification number recorded in the civil status documents of 
an applicant who states that he or she is transsexual constitute unequal treatment? 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
10 In the view of the referring court, the most significant reason for the need for this 
request for a preliminary ruling is the possible contradiction between the national 
case-law binding on the court and EU law. 
11 First, it is to be noted that the Bulgarian Konstitutsionen sad (Constitutional 
Court) has provided a binding interpretation of the term ‘gender’ used in the 
Bulgarian Constitution (judgment No 15 of 26 October 2021). The Constitutional 
Court assumes that, as it is used in the Bulgarian Constitution, that term is to be 
understood in its biological sense. The question has to do not with whether a 
person’s right to determine his or her gender is recognised in one way or another, 
but ‘only with the State’s obligation to respect that person’s self-determination in 
relation to a gender other than his or her biological sex’. In this regard, the 
referring court considers it necessary to examine whether the unrestricted 
observance of the aforementioned binding interpretation of the [Bulgarian] 
Constitution is compatible with the requirements of EU law, and whether that 
interpretation constitutes a legal impediment to the registration of a change of 
gender. 
SHIPOV 
 
9 
12 In accordance with Article 130(2) of the ZSV, interpretative decisions are binding 
on the judicial and administrative authorities, on local self-government authorities 
and on all authorities which adopt administrative measures. In this regard, account 
is also to be taken of the special attention which the referring court pays hereafter 
to Interpretative Decision No 2/2020 of the OSGK of the VKS of 20 February 
2023, cited in paragraph 7. According to that decision, the relevant Bulgarian 
material law does not provide for any possibility for the court, in proceedings 
under the Law on the Civil Status Register, to authorise a change to the particulars 
concerning gender, name and identification number recorded in the civil status 
documents of an applicant who states that he or she is transsexual. Bulgarian law 
understands the term ‘gender’ only in its biological sense and does not permit the 
court to allow civil status documents issued in respect of a transsexual person to 
be changed in relation to his or her gender. That decision proceeds on the 
assumption that any failure to comply with a judgment of the Constitutional Court 
constitutes an infringement of the Basic Law, since such a failure affects the 
fundamental principles of the rule of law, which is governed by the Constitution 
and national law. EU law does not require any other conclusion to be drawn in this 
regard, since rules on civil status fall within the competence of the Member States, 
which is to say that the national identity of [the citizens of] those States is taken to 
be that which is inherent in the political and constitutional structures of those 
States. In its judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union leaves the 
regulation of civil status and marriage to the autonomy of the Member States of 
the European Union. In the present case, the public interest outweighs the interest 
of transsexual applicants in being allowed to change their gender in civil status 
registers. Changing the particulars recorded in the civil status documents issued in 
respect of an applicant who states that he or she is transsexual impacts on the civil 
status of other persons, including minors and those without legal capacity (the 
applicant’s children), as well as his or her spouse. As a result, a person’s 
parentage by birth is determined not by two persons of different genders (mother 
and father) but by persons of the same gender; this is not permitted by the 
applicable law of the Republic of Bulgaria. The overriding public interest arises 
from an examination of the material law applicable in the country. Neither the 
Law on the Civil Status Register nor the any other law prescribes how a change to 
the particulars concerning the gender, name and identification number of an 
applicant who states that he or she is transsexual impacts on the civil status 
documents of the applicant’s child, in particular on the parentage recorded in the 
child’s birth certificate, in which the applicant is recorded as being the father or 
mother. That change affects the rights of another person, but its consequences for 
the child are not expressly regulated. The ECtHR has not held that Article 8 
ECHR establishes in connection with the rights of a transsexual person conditions 
under which the national court of a State which is a contracting party to the 
Convention is required to authorise a change to the gender recorded the civil 
status documents issued in respect of that person, and has found no infringement 
in such non-fulfilment of positive obligations incumbent on the State. 
13 The referring court also draws a parallel with the case-law of the ECtHR and 
recalls that, by its judgments of 9 July 2020 in Y.T. v. Bulgaria (application no. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST IN A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-43/24 
 
10  
41701/16) and of 27 September 2022 in P.H. v Bulgaria (application no. 
46509/20), the ECtHR found Bulgaria to have violated Article 8 ECHR on the 
ground that that State had failed to strike an appropriate balance between the 
public interest and the applicant’s personal interest in securing a change of civil 
status. The ECtHR based those decisions on the fact that the national courts, 
despite finding that the gender claimed did not correspond to the applicants’ 
biological sex, and refusing to allow the identity documents to be changed, 
because such a change was not in the public interest, did not provide any reasons 
with respect to the particular nature of the public interest in relation to the right of 
the applicants to have their gender identity recognised. 
14 In the light of the case-law cited, the referring court recognises that the right to 
private and family life does indeed include the possibility for transsexual persons 
to change their gender, and that this fact requires the State to ensure respect for 
those rights and to prevent any unjustified interference with the exercise of those 
rights. Since, in accordance with the [Bulgarian] Constitution, the provisions of 
the ECHR are directly applicable and take precedence over Bulgarian national 
law, citizens are able to rely on those provisions before the national courts, even in 
the absence of detailed national legislation. 
15 In this regard, the referring court takes the view that the material law applicable in 
Bulgaria, which includes both EU law and the case-law of the ECtHR, does not 
contain any prohibition on changing the particulars concerning gender, name and 
identification number recorded in the civil status documents of an applicant who 
states that he or she is transsexual. The question arises as to whether the 
aforementioned interpretative decision introduces national case-law which treats 
transsexual persons less favourably than intersex persons or other persons for 
whom a legal change of gender is necessary for medical reasons. 
16 The referring court notes that transsexual persons of Bulgarian nationality 
changed their gender by way of judicial proceedings, even without having 
undergone surgical intervention or hormone treatment, before Interpretative 
Decision No. 2/2023 was adopted. The right of persons to change their gender as 
recorded in civil status documents has already been recognised in a number of 
final judgments given by Bulgarian courts on the basis of statutory provisions. It 
must therefore be clarified whether taking account of that interpretative decision 
leads to discrimination and an infringement of the right to a fair trial (inasmuch as 
that interpretative decision effectively imposes a prospective prohibition on 
legally changing the gender of transsexual persons). 
17 In the view of the referring court, that difference in the case-law relating to 
persons in the same or a similar situation constitutes unequal treatment that creates 
uncertainty and ambiguity with regard to the legal position of the persons 
concerned and adversely affects their right to live according to the gender to 
which they assign themselves. The referring court also recalls that, in accordance 
with the principle of equal treatment, ‘persons who are in the same situation must 
be treated in the same way in law’. 
SHIPOV 
 
11 
18 The referring court is of the view that gender change is a process that should move 
from what is simpler and reversible (harmless to health and life) to what is more 
complex and irreversible (entailing a risk to health and life). According to that 
logic, a person’s name and identification number, changes to which are reversible, 
must be changed first; the transexual person can, if he or she expresses a wish to 
do so and acts on his or her own free will, take steps towards irreversible surgical 
or other interventions to adapt his or her physical gender, later. It is in a 
transsexual person’s interests not to be compelled, first of all, to undergo risky 
biological treatments and irreversible surgical interventions as a condition of the 
possibility of a later change to his or her gender for civil status purposes. 
19 In the view of the referring court, the subject matter of the interpretation sought 
should also include the question whether the prohibition on a legal change to the 
particulars contained in a person’s birth certificate infringes the principles of the 
equality of citizens of the Union and freedom of movement, enshrined in Article 8 
and Article 21 TFEU, which are reinforced by Article 7 of the Charter and 
Article 8 ECHR, since the persons concerned are unable to provide proof of their 
identity by means of their identity documents, in which they are recorded as being 
of the opposite sex. 
20 In this regard, the referring court is of the view that, since gender is an aspect of 
civil status, the Court of Justice must examine whether EU law imposes an 
obligation on the Bulgarian court to recognise a change to the gender of a 
Bulgarian national which has been made in another Member State by ordering that 
change to be recorded in the relevant [Bulgarian] registers. The consequence of a 
finding to the contrary would be that the same person could be registered as being 
of a different gender in different Member States. 
21 In the view of the referring court, the uncertainty in relation to these questions, 
which are crucial to the resolution of this dispute, can be dispelled only by a 
binding interpretation of the provisions of EU law cited in the questions referred 
for a preliminary ruling, which the Court of Justice of the European Union alone 
has jurisdiction to give.