Van Kück v Germany (Application No. 35968/97)

In brief

The European Court of Human Rights held that the manner in which German civil courts evaluated evidence of the medical necessity of gender-confirming treatment for the purposes of private health-insurance reimbursement violated the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The Court emphasised that the right to gender identity and personal development falls within the scope of Article 8, and that overly intrusive evidential demands engage proportionality scrutiny.

Key provisions

• Article 8 ECHR — gender identity within “private life”: The Court confirmed that gender identity and personal development fall within the scope of Article 8.
• Article 6 ECHR — fair-trial guarantees in evidential evaluation: The civil courts’ approach to evidence of medical necessity was held to deny the applicant a fair hearing.

When relevant

When considering proportionality of evidential or medical-proof requirements imposed on trans applicants by employers, public authorities, or insurers.