Close this search box.


Case No 3867/66 JY – Egypt

Litigation Degree: First
Case No: 3867/66 JY
Issuing Court: Administrative Court
Judgement: Unfavourable, the Court decided not to grant the plaintiff’s request to be issued a sex determination certificate by the forensic medical authority
Judgement Date: 27/01/2013

The plaintiff, X, initiated litigation before the State Council seeking the nullification of the decision rendered by the Alexandrian Forensic Medical Authority regarding her gender, which was determined as male based on forensic medical examination, despite having undergone a gender-affirming procedure from male to female. Nevertheless, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim and upheld the decision of the Forensic Medical Authority and the chromosomal analysis report, which confirmed the presence of male chromosomes in the plaintiff.

The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings on December 12, 2011, before the State Council, specifically the Administrative Court, against the Minister of the Interior and Director of the Forensic Medical Authority of Alexandria (defendants). The plaintiff sought the annulment of the Authority and Ministry of the Interior’s decision regarding her sex, alleging that it was unlawful, illegal, and inconsistent with the relevant authorities. The plaintiff underwent surgery at Al-Atifi Specialist Hospital in Assiut to change her sex from male to female. The defendants provided a forensic medical report, conducted on March 23, 2011, which included a comprehensive examination of the reproductive system and breasts, as well as a chromosomal analysis. The report concluded that the plaintiff carried an XY chromosome, affirming her biological sex as male rather than female.

The Court dismissed the case and rendered its judgment based on two factors: the factor of gravity and the factor of exigency. The former evaluated the severity of the case, while the latter ensured the promptness of the judgment in view of the irreparable consequences that would arise from any delays, as stipulated in Article 1 of Act No. 96 of 1952, which regulates the expertise of the judiciary. The case was dismissed on the grounds that it pertained primarily to medical matters and was only within the purview of medical experts. Consequently, the Court was satisfied with and accepted the medical report presented to it. Subsequently, the case was dismissed.

Share the Post: