Hungary breaks EU law by asking transgender refugee for proof of surgery

[IwantToRetire]

Hungary broke EU law by asking a transgender refugee for proof of gender reassignment surgery, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said on Thursday.

The Iranian national, named only as VP, was born a woman but identifies as a man.

Hungarian authorities recorded VP as female on their asylum register after granting refugee status in 2014.

In 2022, VP used EU data protection rules to request the entry be changed to male in the Hungarian register.

Authorities refused to change the personal data unless they were given proof of gender reassignment surgery.

Judges at the EU’s top court said the demand for proof broke the General Data Protection Regulation, which gives people the right to correct inaccurate information about themselves.

In a rebuke to Hungary, the Luxembourg court said a “member state may under no circumstances, by administrative practice, make the exercise of that right subject to the production of evidence of sex reassignment surgery”.

Full article here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/03/13/eu-transgender-refugee-proof-surgery-breaks-law-ecj-asylum/
And also at https://archive.is/NAPE3

I know the UK is no longer part of the EU but just wondered does this ruling mean that the EU supports self ID or it is just about countries not having the right to ask intrusive questions?

Although this article (2023) implies the UK is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58889543

Although this article says we aren't but that the ECJ rulings have influence (?) https://www.360businesslaw.com/blog/understanding-the-impact-of-ecj-rulings-on-uk-data-protection/

Don’t see the issue?

GDPR gives people the right to correct inaccurate information about themselves

I think this is the heart of the matter.

This is someone born female but identifying as male, "correcting" the authorities' sex record of her from female to male.

Everyone has the right to correct inaccurate information; in the world we now live in, "female" is deemed to be legally inaccurate for this female person.

Years ago (many NCs ago for me) someone was saying on mumsnet that some case or other heralded the end of the transgender movement but i remember saying, no, it'll take decades and decades to reverse, it won't be in my lifetime. I still think so. Allowing people to change their sex on official documents, and then even insisting that correct sex is "inaccurate", is not going to be easy to reverse.

The problem is that the authorities have made the field subjective, rather than objective.

The moment you make that field a choice - then people have to be permitted to choose, and that right has to be granted equally.

And the only definition of "accurate" and "inaccurate" for something someone gets to choose is "what they want".

If Hungary (or other countries) was recording sex, or sex and surgical status, there'd be far less of an issue - "inaccurate" would be about something objective.

I'm pretty certain you could have a different form of "gender recognition" where what was recorded was "actual sex, or modified sex if someone's had this procedure done". As long as that wasn't an actual choice - the reregistration after the procedure was compulsory.

Then the field would be an objective record, and "inaccurate" would be it not matching surgical status.

But no, countries have got themselves in this pickle by making "sex" markers a matter of choice, and thinking they can limit who gets to have the choice. That doesn't work - they can't limit it, and they don't get to say what's "inaccurate" any more.

The only route out is to remove any choice from people. Which then just leaves you with the "should this information be recorded at all" issue.

It's all very confusing and contradictory.

In 2022, VP used EU data protection rules to request the entry be changed to male in the Hungarian register.

Authorities refused to change the personal data unless they were given proof of gender reassignment surgery.

Hungary does not legally recognise transgender identity. In 2020, the government banned transgender people from legally changing their sex.

So according to this article, the Hungarian authorities will change someone's sex on official documents if they have proof of gender reassignment surgery, even though people can't legally change sex.

Judges at the EU’s top court said the demand for proof broke the General Data Protection Regulation, which gives people the right to correct inaccurate information about themselves.

The ECJ said EU law did not undermine the right of member states to draft their own laws on the legal recognition of gender.

But national governments had to comply with EU law, including the data protection rules which gave the right for people to have incorrect information rectified.

So the EU allows member states to have their own laws on gender, but people have the right to have incorrect information rectified, without any proof that the information is incorrect. According to this article, this seems to include having their self identified 'gender' recorded on official documents on a self-id basis. How can this be compatible with laws which require some sort of evidence of a change of 'gender', or with states which don't allow such changes at all?

The problem is that the authorities have made the field subjective, rather than objective.

The moment you make that field a choice - then people have to be permitted to choose, and that right has to be granted equally.

So does that mean that self-id is now required by EU law across all member states, even those which don't allow people to change their sex on official documents?

How is that compatible with this statement?

The ECJ said EU law did not undermine the right of member states to draft their own laws on the legal recognition of gender.

Are they just saying that states can draft their own laws, but if someone goes to the ECJ they will be overruled to be in line with EU law?

Perhaps Hungary would have been within their rights, had they simply said “No, you cannot change your sex and sex is what we record.”.

The problem came because they demanded private information?

Might that be correct?

Perhaps Hungary would have been within their rights, had they simply said “No, you cannot change your sex and sex is what we record.”.

In that case, why did they say that they'd make the change to the register if they had proof of surgery?

If they don't allow a change of sex on the register, then having surgery should make no difference.

I'm not sure Hungary gives two figs for what the EU thinks about anything.

I agree with you. I’m just trying to understand the “logic” of the court ruling.

N.B. The word logic is within inverted commas for a reason.

The whole thing is irrational, and it's irrational to seek to find rationality in some segment of it.

It was certainly irrational of the Hungarian authorities to say that they would make the change under a specific circumstance when actually their laws don't allow them to make such a change.

It is irrational of the EU court to rule that nember states must allow falsification of documentation.

But if a state is going to allow falsification of documentation I think it's an absolute wrong to make that falsification allowable if the person wanting the falsification undergoes life-threatening surgery. Surgery like that should be generally discouraged, not made a required step in an official pathway.

I think this was just about the surgery requirement.
It's illogical and intrusive to require surgery to allow "sex" change. It makes no difference to the actual sex of the person and potentially encourages them to undergo risky surgery.

If Hungary don't recognise gender change then they should just have refused to change the recorded sex. It made no sense to ask for details of whether the person had undergone surgery or not.

However, this case will no doubt be leveraged to try to say that there's defacto self id in the EU.

So does that mean that self-id is now required by EU law across all member states, even those which don't allow people to change their sex on official documents?

The issue here is that Hungary said it was permitted. But their cost on permitting it was excessively onerous to the point of being unethical. I'm still of the opinion that a flat no on choice at any price would be a different scenario.

Are they just saying that states can draft their own laws, but if someone goes to the ECJ they will be overruled to be in line with EU law?

I get the impression they're not requiring full self-ID (pop a form in the post), but that they wouldn't permit anything very far from that. The light bureaucracy we have at the minute is probably fine - but I can imagine someone who got turned down repeatedly might be able to bring a case.

But by comparison we are absolutely solid on the "no, you can't have X" non-binary case, because we're just saying a flat no to everyone.

We're only suffering from adverse international court judgements on the case where we're permitting the choice in the first place - flipping between M and F.

The issue here is that Hungary said it was permitted.

But this contradicts Hungarian law. Since 2020, Hungary hasn't permitted people to legally change 'gender'. As far as I can tell there are no exceptions for people who have surgery.

Hungary Court Closes Door on Transgender Legal Recognition | Human Rights Watch

That would apply to people living in Hungary who want to change their sex marker . I don’t think that applies to people entering the country who already changed the sex market on their identity documents in a different country.

If V followed the laws regarding gender reassignment in Iran and had a passport and birth certificate issued as Male, that certainly creates an issue when moving to Hungary. But it’s a different issue to a Hungarian wanting to change documentation, because the change has already occurred.

Also, let’s not conflate the equivalent of a GRC with self-id. They are not the same (thank god).

Can you post a link? I can't find anything that says this person had legal recognition in Iran.

In looking for that, I found this article which states that the Hungarian law of 2020 is incompatible with EU law.

Court of Justice of the European Union: the gender of trans people in national registers must be corrected - Hungarian Helsinki Committee

In looking for that, I found this article which states that the Hungarian law of 2020 is incompatible with EU law

Why can't they ever come up with a judgment that doesn't rely on sex and "gender" both being the same thing but different simultaneously?

If "gender" is different from sex, why are they insisting that it has to be recorded as sex?

And why are we filling in what they think is a "gender" field with sex at birth?

This is illogical gibberish. As ever.

Some of the finest legal minds in Europe trying to work out... illogical gibberish, as you define it, NecessaryScene.

There was a proposal in the US a while ago - before the Trump EO on sex/gender - which suggested conflating the terms 'sex' and 'gender' for all official purposes.
So if your sex is male, your gender is male.
If your sex is female, your gender is female.

Governments could save a lot of time and effort if they did that, wouldn't they?
XX chromosomes? your sex and your gender is female. XY? sex and gender male.

This would take the woo out of genderwoo by defining it as 'the same as sex', and forms that you have to fill in could use the word 'gender' or 'sex' interchangeably, it would amount to the same question, 'are you male or female' with no need for drop-down menus of 72 different gender options.

It won't happen, alas, but wouldn't it free up a lot of time and effort now wasted on illogical gibberish?

Hungarian authorities recorded VP as female on their asylum register after granting refugee status in 2014.

This is the problem that wont go away with legal sex and actual sex.

If VP fully transitioned in Iran, how could hungerian authorities mistakenly record her as female? She either didnt fully transition at all - had a female paper trail or is obviously female.

Sex is fundamental to law making in that it is impossible to legislate e.g. for women's protected single-sex spaces without recording sex and it being clear this is biological sex.
Sex also is required for research, esp medical but also almost any research, historical, sociological, geographical etc as to populations, death rates etc. Without sex we stay in the male is default human situation.
Iranian is possibly gay. Iran is encourage 'sex change' for homosexuals. If she has bought that one it will be difficult for her to re-align herself esp in Hungary.

Sex is fundamental to law making in that it is impossible to legislate e.g. for women's protected single-sex spaces without recording sex and it being clear this is biological sex.

Absolutely. I'm firmly behind the fact that it should be recorded, and there should be official ID showing it. People do need to prove their sex sometimes.

But I'd be open to having some sort of route to letting people optionally obtain some ID not showing sex, for people who not want it highlighted, usable in non-sex-specific circumstances.

For example proof-of-age ID, or drivers licenses don't necessarily need to show sex.

For example proof-of-age ID, or drivers licenses don't necessarily need to show sex.

UK driving licences don't explicitly show sex. I say explicitly because one of the digits in the driver number is a code for sex. I only discovered this when one of the Man Friday activists changed her sex (or gender?) on her licence using self ID.

Self-ID and Driving Licences - For Women Scotland

Thanks for responses.

I am glad I am not the only one who found the ruling confusing.

And was also concerned as to how far reaching this ruling would be in terms of precedent, particularly if this European Court is said to still have influence in the UK.

ie if the ruling is saying it is intrusive to ask whether someone has actually had surgery, then it is efffectively self id. And another arguement to attack the process of obtaining GRC in the UK as presumably all of this process is "intrusive".

GRA 2004

"A person’s gender is not to be regarded as having changed by reason only that it has changed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom."

So presumably Hungary can also apply their own legislation in this area?