Litigation Degree: Second
Case No: Appeals No. 41691 and 43507 of Case No 80416/62 JY
Issuing Court: Supreme Administrative Court
Judgement: No final judgement was reached. The Court requested an expert committee to be formed to provide informed opinion to the Court
Judgement Date: 07/09/2019
Summary:
The plaintiff has filed an appeal against the decision rendered by the Administrative Court, whereby his request to amend his name and personal data on official documents to reflect his newly acquired sex from female to male was denied. The Supreme Administrative Court has determined that, before issuing a final judgement, the issue has to be examined by experts, and that the documents in question should be submitted for evaluation by a committee comprising medical experts, who will render a decision.
Facts:
The plaintiff, who was born on 30/10/1982 and diagnosed with gender identity disorder, was evaluated by a specialised committee of medical syndicate doctors on 22/11/2012 and received approval to undergo gender-affirming operations. The operations were performed at the Al-Dokki Specialist Centre to change the plaintiff’s sex from female to male. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested a change of personal information, including a name change from “Noran” to “Aydin,” in official documents. However, this request was denied by the relevant authorities. As a result, the plaintiff filed a claim before the Administrative Court. The court dismissed the case based on a chromosomal analysis dated 9/2/2014, which indicated that the plaintiff had female chromosomes. The court also cited articles 2, 12, 36, and 47 of Act No. 143 of 1994 on civil status, which regulate the handling of data, official documents, birth certificates, national ID cards, etc., by citizens and competent authorities. The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Administrative Court on the following grounds: 1. The medical reports were incorrectly treated as indicating a psychiatric disorder in the plaintiff. 2. The right to a fair defence was violated, and the reports issued by the medical syndicate were not given proper consideration. 3. Articles 18 and 54 of the Constitution were violated, as the former guarantees the right to health for all citizens and protects every citizen’s personal freedom and safety. Based on these arguments, the case was presented to the Supreme Administrative Court through two separate briefs from different stakeholders. The first brief (No. 41691 of 62 judicial) was submitted on 19/3/2016, and the second brief (No. 43057 of 62 judicial) was submitted on 22/3/2016.
Judgement:
The Court ordered the formation of a committee composed of medical experts and professors of Cairo and Ain Shams Universities. The plaintiff is required to pay a sum of 20,000 pounds to cover the costs associated with establishing this committee. Furthermore, the Court scheduled a session on 19/10/2019 for these professors and experts to take an oath prior to presenting their statements. The Court consolidated the appeals and referred them to the State Commissioners’ Board and a committee of doctors, which included a psychiatrist, andrologist, clinical geneticist, endocrinologist, and a paediatrician, to review and evaluate the appeals. On 6/5/2019, the Court referred the appeals for further consideration, setting a hearing date on 15/6/2019.