(AGENPARL) - Roma, 12 Marzo 2026 - (AGENPARL) – Thu 12 March 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 33/26
Luxembourg, 12 March 2026
Judgment of the Court in Case C-43/24 | [Shipova] 1
Member State legislation which does not permit the amendment of the
gender data of one of its nationals who has exercised his or her right to
freedom of movement is contrary to EU law
A Bulgarian national was registered at birth as being male, with a name, 2 personal identification number and
identity documents corresponding to that sex. She currently lives in Italy, where she has begun hormone therapy,
and now presents herself as a woman.
She instituted proceedings before the Bulgarian courts seeking a declaration that she is a female person and to
have her civil status data amended on her birth certificate. Despite the medical opinions and legal assessments
confirming the gender identity claimed, her request was rejected.
According to national legislation, as interpreted by the plenary assembly of civil chambers of the Bulgarian Supreme
Court of Cassation, the term ‘sex’ must be understood in its biological sense, excluding any amendment of the
particulars relating to sex, name and identification number. The public interest, based on the moral and/or religious
values of Bulgarian society, thus prevails over the interests of transgender persons.
Hearing the dispute, the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation has doubts as to the compatibility of that legislation
with EU law and has referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
In its judgment, the Court holds that EU law precludes legislation of a Member State which does not permit
the amendment of the gender data in the civil status registers of one of its nationals who has exercised his
or her right to move and reside freely in another Member State.
The Court emphasises first of all that, while the issue of identity documents falls within the competence of the
Member States, they must exercise that competence in compliance with EU law.
In that regard, the Court notes that the discrepancy between a person’s lived gender identity and the gender data
appearing on his or her identity card is such as to hinder the exercise of his or her right to freedom of movement.
Such a discrepancy may, in many everyday situations – in particular during identity checks or cross-border travel or
for professional reasons – oblige that person to dispel doubts as to his or her identity or the authenticity of his or
her official documents. That situation gives rise to considerable inconveniences.
A restriction on freedom of movement only can be accepted, however, if it is based on objective public-interest
considerations and complies with the proportionality principle in accordance with EU law and the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to respect for
private life. That right protects gender identity and obliges Member States to provide for clear, accessible and
effective procedures for the legal recognition of it.
Furthermore, the Court holds that EU law precludes a court from being bound by its constitutional court’s
interpretation where that interpretation impedes the application of EU law as interpreted by the Court.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

(AGENPARL)