22
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Current developments

Transsexuals and English law: Farther developments

Pages 499-505 | Published online: 01 Feb 2008

References

  • Khaliq , U. 1996 . ‘Transsexuality and English law: latest developments’ . JSWFL , 18 : 365
  • Case No. 75/1995/581/667 X, Y andZ v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 22 April 1997, nyr. Hereinafter X, YandZ.
  • Sheffield v. United Kingdom, Application No. 222985/93, Horsham v. United Kingdom, Application No. 23390/94, Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights adopted on 21 January 1997. Hereinafter Sheffield and Horsham respectively. The Commission has declared admissible another similar case, I v. United Kingdom, Application No. 25680/94, but has not examined the merits, European Commission of Human Rights, Information Note No. 142,2.
  • See Decision on the Admissibility of Application No. 21830/93 X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom.
  • X, Y and Z Commission Opinion, para. [47].
  • 1979 . See, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 June, Series A, No. 31; (1979–80) EHRR 2: 330. Hereinafter Marckx.
  • 1994 . Keegan v. Ireland, Judgment of 26 May, Series A, No. 290; (1994) EHRR 18: 342. Hereinafter Keegan.
  • 1994 . The Court has also stated that the concept of ‘family life’ may encompass other de facto relationships in, amongst others, Marckx, para. [31] and Kroon and Others v. The Netherlands, Judgment of 27 October, Series A, No. 297-C; (1995) EHRR 19: 263, para. [30]. Hereinafter Kroon.
  • Keegan . paras , [44] – [45] .
  • X, Y andZ, Commission Opinion . para. ,
  • 1993 . 16 : 38 G v. Netherlands, Application No. 16944/90; EHRR CD .
  • X, Yand Z, Commission Opinion . para. ,
  • 1993 . 32 : 220 Kerkhoven and Others v. The Netherlands, Application No. 15666/89, unreported. Hereinafter Kerkhoven. X, Y and Z, Commission Opinion, para. [55]. See also the concurring opinion of Mr H. G. Schermers who disagreed with the majority on this distinction. The Commission has also dismissed other applications concerning homosexual couples claiming ‘family life’ such as X and Y v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 9369/81; (1983) D & R
  • X, Y and Z Commission Opinion . para. ,
  • X, Y and Z, Commission Opinion . para. , Kerkhoven, cited in
  • Ibid . para. ,
  • Ibid . para. ,
  • 1995 . It seems the Commission, in this case at least, used the terms ‘family life’ and ‘family relationship’ interchangeably to mean the same thing. The Commission's use of the term here is contrary to the definition suggested by O'Donnell, K. ‘Protection of family life: positive approaches and the ECHR’ . JSWFL , 17 : 261 – 263 . who argues that a ‘family relationship’ is the ‘legally recognized tie of blood or marriage’.
  • X, Y and Z, Commission Opinion . para. ,
  • Ibid . paras , [66] – [69] .
  • 1987 . EHRR 9: 56 , Rees v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A, No. 106; Cossey v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A, No. 184; (1991) EHRR 13: 622. Hereinafter Rees and Cossey respectively.
  • X, Y and Z, Commission Opinion . para. ,
  • X, Y and Z . para ,
  • The Council of Europe now has forty Contracting States who have a combined population of 766 million.
  • Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A, No. 26; (1979–80) EHRR 2: 1, para. [31].
  • X, Y and Z . pan. ,
  • Ibid . para. , It is worth noting that the Court did not once expressly state that the applicants enjoyed ‘family life’ although the implication is that they must have, as Article 8 was found to be applicable and the Court was not considering the application under the concept of ‘private life’. There is little, if any, evidence of the Court developing a new category of ‘family ties’ in addition to that of ‘family life’.
  • X, Y and Z . para. ,
  • 1987 . EHRR , 9 : 123 Marckx, Keegan, Kroon and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A, No. 112;
  • X, Y and Z . para. ,
  • Although the Court gave no real examples of what these undesirable or unforeseen consequences for Z or others in her situation might be . X, Y and Z para. ,
  • X, Y and Z, para. , For example, one of the applicants' submissions had been that if X died intestate, Z would have no automatic right to inheritance. The Court felt this problem could be solved if X were to make a will.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.