Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 30062/19
D. (anonymity has been granted)
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 28 May 2019
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal of domestic authorities to amend the applicant’s civil-status data (birth certificate and identity documents) to reflect her transgender identity and the failure to protect her identity in public documents.
The applicant is a transgender person (male to female) who underwent hormone therapy. In 2012 she obtained a medical certificate issued by the Ministry of Health attesting to her transgender identity. In 2015 she sought to have her civil-status documents amended – namely, to have her gender marker changed from male to female and her first name changed from a typically male name to a female one. Her request was rejected by the civil status authority.
In 2016 she initiated court proceedings, reiterating the same requests. Along with her statement of claim, the applicant requested that the proceedings take place in camera, that the court refer to her as “she/her” and that court documents use initials instead of her full name. On 18 February 2016 the first-instance court upheld her claims concerning the amendment of the civil-status documents but never ruled on her procedural requests. On 3 May 2016 the full text of the judgment was published on the court’s website.
The civil status authority appealed against that judgment, arguing that it had been impossible to amend the applicant’s civil-status documents because she was married to a woman. On 9 November 2016 the appellate court ordered a rehearing of the case, and the full text of the appellate judgment was published on the court’s website.
On 19 October 2017 the first-instance court again upheld the applicant’s claims, omitted to rule on her procedural requests and published the text of the judgment – which included the applicant’s personal data – on the court’s website. Several media outlets accessed the court judgment and published news items about the applicant’s case, using her personal data. The applicant sought the removal of her personal data from the court’s website, but to no avail.
The Public Services Agency (the legal successor of the civil status authority) appealed against that judgment, relying on the applicant’s marriage as grounds to refuse the amendment of her civil-status documents. Before the appellate court, the applicant sought protection of her private life and personal data. On 17 May 2018 the appellate court reversed the first-instance judgment and cited the applicant’s marriage to another woman as grounds to reject the amendment of her civil-status documents.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice, submitting a copy of her divorce certificate dated 14 November 2018. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on 5 December 2018.
The applicant complains about the refusal of the domestic authorities to amend her civil-status documents (birth certificate and identity documents) and the publication of her personal data in the full text of the judgments in her case. She relies on Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the domestic authorities’ refusal to amend the applicant’s civil-status documents (birth certificate and identity documents) in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see principles in Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no. 37359/09, §§ 65-68, ECHR ; X v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29683/16, §§ 63-71, 17 January 2019)? In addition, was the applicant’s personal data made public and were there legal safeguards concerning the recording, storage and release of such information (see Negru v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 7336/11, 27 June 2023, and A.P. v. Armenia, no. 58737/14, 18 June 2024)?