Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244
October 2020
M v. France (communicated case) - 42821/18
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Effective investigation
Positive obligations
Feminising medical procedures carried out on intersex person during childhood, without the person’s knowledge or consent: communicated
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Refusal to conduct judicial investigation on statutory limitation grounds in response to complaint by intersex person concerning feminising medical procedures carried out during childhood without the person’s knowledge or consent: communicated
The applicant, who was born in 1977, is an intersex person who during childhood and adolescence underwent feminising surgery and medical treatment. According to the applicant, this led to severe psychological and psychiatric problems and to her being recognised as a disabled worker. As a result, she lives on the allowance granted to her on that basis, remains unable to find stable employment and has difficulty integrating both socially and economically.
The applicant stresses that her parents received only partial and inaccurate information when she was born and when her treatment commenced, that the decision to carry out feminising treatment was taken when she was too young to give her consent, and that she was not subsequently informed of the purpose of the treatments she received. She alleges that she only became aware of this in 2000 when some correspondence was intercepted, and that it was not until 2014 that a medical professional explained to her the meaning of her condition and the purpose of the operations.
In November 2015 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the tribunal de grande instance against persons unknown for assault, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. However, the investigating judge refused to institute an investigation on the grounds that the limitation period had expired in November 2005, that is, ten years after the victim had reached the age of majority.
The applicant argued unsuccessfully that, since she had not been properly informed by the doctors treating her, there had been an “insurmountable obstacle to prosecution” prior to the interception of the letter in 2000 and that, accordingly, the limitation period should not have started to run until that date.
Communicated under Article 3 (substantive and procedural aspects) and Article 6 of the Convention, with preliminary issues regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy