How much of a groundbreaking decision is the CJEU’s judgment for transgender rights? – Thibault Lechevallier

3 July 2018 by


IMB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ,26 June 2018 

Weeks after ruling against certain sexual orientation tests for asylum seekers and finding that EU Member States must recognise the free movement rights of gay spouses, regardless of whether same-sex marriages are solemnised therein, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the UK requirement for transgendered persons to be unmarried in order to qualify for a State pension at the retirement age of their current gender violated EU law.

Background facts

The claimant, identified as MB, is a male-to-female married transgendered person, i.e she was assigned the male sex at birth, but identifies as female. After being recognised as female on both passports and driving licenses issued by UK authorities, MB underwent sex reassignment surgery in 1995. She did not, however, obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

In 2008, MB reached the then-female retirement age of 60 and sought a State pension. However, her application was rejected on the grounds that i) she did not meet the retirement age for men(which then was age 65) and ii) she could not be considered for a pension on the basis of the retirement age for womenbecause she had not acquired a Gender-Recognition Certificate. Why not obtain such a certificate, one might ask? The reason is that, at the time, it would have been conditional on her annulling her marriage (same-sex unions were not allowed then). However, MB and her spouse were unwilling to divorce. In a nutshell, MB found herself in an invidious situation: either, she waits until the retirement age for men to lay claim to her pension, even though she identifies (but is not legally recognised) as female, or she divorces her partner, acquires a gender recognition certificate, and applies for a pension at the female retirement age.

MB challenged the refusal to grant her a pension at the female retirement age in national courts, arguing that the marriage annulment prerequisite amounted to unequal treatment contrary to EU law. To that end, she relied on a EU directive  from 1978 outlawing sex-based discrimination in matters of social security, including old-age and retirement pensions.

The case wound its way up to the Supreme Court, who were divided on the issue and referred a question to the ECJ. The Supreme Court queried whether the EU directive at hand prohibits the requirement imposed on transgendered persons to be unmarried in order to qualify for a State retirement pension at the retirement age of their current gender, in addition to meeting various other physical, social and psychological criteria.

Reasoning behind the Court’s decision

The ECJ followed Advocate General Bobek’s Opinion, and held that UK pension law amounted to direct sex discrimination. In greater detail, the Court ruled that the said EU directive precludes the UK requirement for transgendered persons not only to satisfy physical, social and psychological criteria, but also to fulfil the condition of being unmarried to a person of their acquired gender, in order to seek a State retirement pension as from the statutory pensionable age applicable to persons of their acquired gender.

  • As regards direct discrimination, the Court first noted that Member States must comply with the principle of non-discrimination in civil matters, in spite of retaining full competence over them. Direct sex discrimination is made out when a person is treated less favourably on grounds of sex than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation. In light of its case law, the ECJ then stated that, in view of its purpose and the nature of the rights it safeguards, the directive in question does apply to discrimination arising from gender reassignment. Indeed, judges took the view that individuals who have lived for a significant period as persons of a gender other than their birth gender and who have undergone a gender reassignment operation mustbe considered transgendered.
  • In the present case, the Court found that while the UK marriage annulment requirement affected persons who transitioned after marrying, it did not apply to married cisgender individuals i.e those identifying with the sex assigned at birth.
  • The Court went on to compare the situation of a person who transitioned after marrying with that of a married cisgender person. Judges held that the State retirement pension is designed to protect its recipients against the risks of old age by conferring on them the right to a retirement pension acquired in relation to the contributions they paid during their working lives, irrespective of marital status. Thus, both situations were deemed comparable.
  • The ECJ ruled that the marriage annulment condition, hitherto fashioned to avoid same-sex marriages, is unrelated to that retirement pension scheme. Instead, it gives rise to direct sex discrimination against married transgender applicants that falls within none of the derogations exhaustively set out in the EU directive. 

Comment: an unsurprisingly progressive decision?

Days after the World Health Organisation removed transgenderism from its international classification of diseases, the ECJ’s decision was hailed by MB’s lawyers as a win of ‘great importance in the move towards increased equality and respect’. The case will now return to the Supreme Court to apply the ruling.

The MB judgement can be considered against the backdrop of a range of progressive and LGBTQI-friendly case-law. Over the years, the EU has developed an important corpus of law protecting a variety of characteristics, such as sexual orientation, and boasts a wide array of anti-discrimination directives as well as protective Charter of Fundamental Rights provisions. Indeed, non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is built into the fabric of the Union: Article 10 TFEU provides that in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat sexual orientation-based discrimination. This has had a significant impact on the UK. For instance, the 1999 Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations were introduced in response to an ECJ landmark ruling finding that protection against gender-based discrimination at work should also apply to people who had undergone or were planning to have gender reassignment surgery. In another British case, the Court held that transgender partners must be entitled to the same employment benefits as married couples and be treated equally under pension schemes.

Crying victory too early?

Looking at the bigger picture, Amnesty International estimates that transgenderism concerns as many as 1.5 million people across Europe. Hearteningly, most European countries now provide for legal gender recognition procedures. However, 2017 statistics supplied by the Trans Rights Europe Map & Indexhighlight the many hurdles that life as a transgendered person implies, which offers a more sobering account of transgender rights in Europe than MBmight suggest. It transpires that 23 European nations still require transgenders to divorce while 36 systematically demand that their mental health be diagnosed, a process slammed by LGBT groups as stigmatising and discriminatory. The harrowing report further underlines that bias-motivated crimes against LGBT people are on the rise throughout Europe and highlights the flaws in the European asylum protection on grounds of gender identity, especially in light of the rise of populists avowedly thriving on the current anti-migrant sentiment. Worse still, it notes that only 2 European countries explicitly outlaw the controversial conversion therapies on grounds of gender identity while 20 still require sterilisation. 8 States have no practical means of recognising transgender people whatsoever. In European terms, this is a polarising issue, with certain Central and Eastern countries having expressed frustration upon the EU for acting as a rubber-stamp for their Western counterparts’ liberal views.

Back in 2002, when transgender campaigner Christine Goodwin won her legal battle against the UK to be legally recognised as female, the ECHR considered there was ‘clear and uncontested evidence of a continuing international trend in favour of increased social acceptance’ of transgendered persons. One wonders, beyond the Goodwin case, whether this was a specious statement. Admittedly, in the UK, transgender rights have come a long way since the infamous 1971 case Corbett v Corbett, and their legal protection has rapidly improved all over Europe. This week’s ECJ judgement can be considered as part of the constellation of legal progress towards the full recognition of transgender persons. Nevertheless, however bright and far-reaching it may be, this ruling also lays bare theobstaclesthey face on the road to equality and social acceptance.

Thibault Lechevallier is currently a stagiaire in the Cabinet of Judge Tomljenovic at the General Court of the European Union. This blog post is written in a purely personal capacity and reflects only the author’s views. The author wishes to thank Michael Rhimes for drawing this case to his attention and for his comments

1 comment;

  1. Without Prejudice –

    Article 79/7/EEC
    Ones seems to be unaware of what makes a man or a wo-man. Removing the Penis, inverting the womb, is basically changing the design of the privy parts. Under no Law, can this constitute the change of sex from male to female neither the reverse.

    It is likened painting ones car with an image of train, adding the dashboard of the train in the car. Is the car now a train?

    There is much more to man and woman than what is between the legs, in ones privy parts. Can this be denied? A lesbian therefore sticking a penis on their privy parts, is now a gay male?

    Was there a Public Consultation when World Health Organisation decided to remove Transgender from its International Class of Diseases. Consider this, the cause of disease once identified and proved accurate, will always remain the same, irrelevant of changing the words on paper/changing the words in documents. Truth remains Truth. Truth cannot change. WHO having made the above removal is either stating their original statement was false or their current statement is false. Which one is it – needs to be clarified in order to have Global credibility.

    Marriage annulment a pre-requisite cannot be accepted as unequal treatment. Unequal treatment is when all those under similar circumstances receive one verdict whereas there is one victim who despite similar circumstances, receives an opposing verdict. In this case MB is the only case identified under these
    circumstances, of not having a stable mental capacity of one stage identifying oneself with the opposite sex of being born with, then at a later stage, wishing to reverse.

    The Marriage annulment pre-requisite law equally applied to all in which case we are currently only aware of MB. There might be other cases which have not surfaced.

    Therefore there is no discrimination to MB.

    However, on the contrary, there can be proved tremendous leniency in the case of MB who having been born with male privy parts under went an operation to invert and form a womb, thinking this changes ones sex. MB though born male, identified oneself as the reverse and was therefore granted Female status on the passport as well as driving licence. This was a discriminatory decision by the Passport as well as Driving Licence Authorities who under normal circumstances would not allow any man or woman to be known as another sex, other than that of what they they been born, yet MB was given special favours – this in fact is discrimination against those naturally born male or female.

    Under normal circumstances it would be viewed a Mental Health which is equally an illness/dis-ease and cannot and must not be viewed as stigmatising nor discriminating.

    A dis-ease will remain a dis-ease irrelevant of any change in Law.

    On the contrary, this case highlights the great injustice to those naturally born male or fe-male who must in all applications, documents etc etc clearly state if they are Mr Mrs Miss Ms thereby declaring their sexual orientation.

    This is discrimination as the transexuals and others do not have this requirement.

    Hence there is an opportunity for New Law whereby it will be available for public viewing who is other than male or female.

    Those ashamed of this proposed New Law, therefore support discrimination to the Natural Born Human Being. This is in truth discrimination and must be addressed.

    Further, State intervention is unjustified whereby either Human Beings as individuals, or business entities wish to adjust, entertain, accept or reject those other than Natually Born Human Beings i.e. Natural Male or Natural Female.

    The State does not intervene for fellow Human Beings in such circumstances why should there by special law for one and not the other.

    These views are from a Human Being naturally born a Female & therefore thinks like a Female, unholding natural conditions for the Female, taking offence against discrimination against that which is Natural.

    I have no prejudice against anyone for whatever sex orientation they might have. Though there is objection when there is State interference with our Freedom of Choice on how we react, accept or reject weather as an individual or a business.

    Man made Law cannot replace the Natural Law which is never changing, compiled by one who gives you Breath. Be not ungrateful.

    Wish you all Peace for reading this.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: