On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled in favor of the applicant in the Deldits case (C-247/23), addressing the rectification of gender identity data.
Background of the Case
The applicant, an Iranian national, was granted refugee status in Hungary in 2014 based on his transgender identity, supported by psychiatric and gynecological reports. Although assigned female at birth, the applicant’s gender identity is male, as reflected in the materials he provided. However, during the refugee status process, he was registered as female in the asylum system. In 2022, the applicant sought to correct his gender and name in the records, citing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 16, which protects individuals’ rights to correct inaccurate personal data. The asylum authority denied the request, claiming that he had not undergone gender reassignment surgery and that the provided certificates only confirmed his transgender identity. As a result, the applicant appealed the decision to the Budapest High Court, while the asylum authority maintained that the case should be dismissed. He faced a legal paradox, as the Hungarian authorities granted him refugee status based on his gender identity, yet he was unable to correct his gender in official records due to the absence of a legal framework for legal gender recognition in the country.
Main Arguments by Hungarian Authorities
According to the Budapest High Court court, while the Hungarian legal system provides provisions for correcting inaccurate entries in asylum law, it does not outline procedures or criteria for recognizing a change in gender identity or forename related to such changes. Consequently, the Budapest High Court has raised several questions regarding the application of Article 16 of the GDPR in this context. Specifically, they seek clarification on whether this article imposes an obligation on the asylum authority to amend gender data in the asylum register to reflect the data subject’s current gender identity, in accordance with the accuracy requirement outlined in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR. They also inquire whether, if the answer is affirmative, the individual requesting the correction must provide supporting evidence, and if so, whether the individual is required to prove they have undergone gender reassignment surgery to facilitate the correction.
Court’s Considerations and Findings
The court affirmed that individuals have the right to request corrections to their personal data under Article 16 of the GDPR. It recognized the applicant’s gender identity as “personal data” and confirmed that its collection and recording in the asylum register constitute “processing” under the regulation. The court further emphasized that data accuracy must be assessed based on its purpose—specifically, identifying the individual under asylum law. Therefore, the asylum authority must register individuals according to their lived gender identity at the time of registration, rather than the gender assigned at birth, contrary to Hungary’s position.
The court ruled that the Hungarian government knew of the applicant’s transgender identity when granting refugee status, making the recorded gender data inaccurate from the start. It also stated that the right to rectification under the GDPR cannot be restricted by national regulations alone. Any limitation must align with Article 23 of the GDPR, which permits restrictions only for legitimate reasons, such as national security, and must be necessary, proportionate, and respect fundamental rights. In this case, Hungary failed to meet these criteria and rejected the applicant’s request solely on the grounds that they had provided evidence of their gender identity.
The ruling indicates that Hungary’s approach to transgender data corrections does not comply with GDPR. Under the GDPR, restrictions on the right to rectify personal data, such as gender identity, must be based on formal legislation, not administrative practices. Hungary appears to lack a legal framework for correcting gender identity data in asylum records. If this is confirmed, such a practice could violate fundamental rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly the rights to personal integrity and privacy as outlined in Articles 3 and 7.
Finally, the court rejects the Hungary’s arguments, stating that the administrative practice in question is neither necessary nor proportionate to ensure the reliability and consistency of the asylum register, which is a public record. The court further clarifies that a medical report, including a psychiatric diagnosis, could serve as sufficient evidence in this context.
The court states: “Considering the above, the response to the second and third questions is that Article 16 of the GDPR should be understood to mean that, in order to exercise the right to rectify personal data related to a person’s gender identity in a public register, the individual may need to provide relevant and sufficient evidence as reasonably required to prove that the data is inaccurate. However, a Member State cannot, under any circumstances, make the exercise of this right conditional on the submission of evidence of gender reassignment surgery through an administrative practice.”
Concluding Remarks
This case and the court’s ruling mark a significant advancement in the protection of trans peoples’ rights while highlighting Hungary’s failure to comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment also acknowledges the intersectional challenges faced by the applicant as a refugee whose gender identity complicates the correction of their personal data, reinforcing its relevance within the broader human rights framework. The court’s judgment highlights that it is crucial for the advancement of trans rights that a trans person is not required to undergo ‘gender reassignment surgery’ in order to have their gender marker updated. In a time of global backsliding on human rights, particularly targeting trans people, this decision represents an encouraging development.
- This judgment is based on the official publication from the CJEU website.
Be First to Comment