Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 920: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she proposes to introduce legislation to vindicate the rights of transsexual Irish citizens; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1164/09]

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 921: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the State decided to challenge the Foy case; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1165/09]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 920 and 921 together.

This issue was the subject of a High Court judgement concerning the rights of a person, who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, to recognition of her acquired gender. On foot of a High Court judgement, delivered on 19 October 2007, the judge made a declaration, pursuant to Section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, that Sections 25, 63 and 64 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 are incompatible with the obligations of the State under the European Convention on Human Rights by reason of their failure to respect the private life of the Applicant, as required by Article 8 of the Convention, in that there are no provisions which would enable the acquired gender identity of the Applicant to be legally recognised in this jurisdiction.

This is the first time that the High Court has made a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of a provision of Irish law. As such, the High Court judgement is very significant and raises complex and far-reaching issues, not merely for this case but for future cases under the European Convention on Human Rights Act. The judgment has implications for a wide range of legislative and policy areas including taxation, social welfare, pensions, family law, criminal law, equality, employment, sport, financial services, health, education and so on.

As the judgment is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court, it is not considered appropriate for me to comment in detail at this time, other than to say that I am keeping the matter under review.