Close this search box.


Case No. 80419 of 86 JY – Egypt

Litigation Degree: First
Case No: 80419/68 JY
Issuing Court: Administrative Court
Judgment: Unfavourable, the request for legal gender recognition was denied
Judgment Date: 24/01/2016

Plaintiff X brought a claim before the State Council, specifically the Administrative Court, alleging the denial of the Civil Status Authority to amend their name and gender in official documents. The plaintiff had undergone gender-affirming surgery, transitioning from female to male, which was duly approved by the competent committee of the Medical Syndicate. However, the court dismissed the case based on the principles of Islamic law, public order, and personal freedom, while ensuring non-infringement of oneself or others. Furthermore, forensic expertise was conducted, which included a comprehensive examination, reproductive assessment, and chromosomal analysis. These findings concluded that the plaintiff is biologically female and not male, despite presenting physically as male.

Plaintiff X has filed a lawsuit against the Minister of the Interior, the Assistant Minister, the Head of the Civil Status Service, and the President of the General Medical Syndicate of Egypt. The lawsuit is regarding their refusal to change the plaintiff’s name and sex in official documents to align with his gender-affirming operation, in which he transitioned from female to male. This refusal has resulted in the plaintiff being deprived of his right to marry, travel, and work. The decision to file this lawsuit came after the plaintiff presented his case to the Civil Status Committee, which is responsible for making changes to official data. As part of the process, the plaintiff underwent a forensic medical examination, mental examination, genital examination, and chromosomal analysis. The results of these examinations confirmed that the plaintiff has female chromosomes but a male reproductive organ. Despite these findings, the plaintiff’s request to change his official documents was denied. It’s important to note that prior to the presentation of the forensic medical examination, the plaintiff had already undergone a gender-affirming procedure on 29/10/2013 at the Al-Dokki Specialist Centre. This procedure was approved by the Medical Syndicate Committee on 22/11/2012, and the plaintiff has submitted the necessary documentation to the court as evidence.

The Court has decided to accept the claim in form and dismiss it in content in accordance with Article 2 of Act No. 143 of 1994, which pertains to the establishment and continuity of a national identification number for citizens throughout their lives. This decision is also based on Article 12, which states the validity of personal data, unless it is proven to be reversed, invalid, or falsified. Additionally, the Court refers to Article 46 of the same Act, which requires the presence of a committee in each governorate to handle disputes regarding personal data. Furthermore, Article 47 stipulates that any changes can only be made if approved by the committee, as mentioned in Article 1 of the Implementing Regulations of the Civil Status Law. The Civil Status Service is responsible for registering citizens’ data, as stated in Article 2 of the same Act, which includes the registration of civil status for birth and death records. The Court’s decision is also based on the fact that any changes made to civil status registers and official documents must be done through a judicial ruling or a decision made by the competent committee. Moreover, the Court relies on Article 2 of the Constitution, which enforces the application of Islamic Sharia Law as the primary source of legislation. The Court recognizes that although personal freedom is protected by law, it should not infringe upon public order or cause harm to the human body. Therefore, changing a person’s gender should be considered a medical necessity rather than an exercise of personal freedom. The Court also considers the opinions of experts on gender corrections, which are legally permitted and based on biological disorders such as intersexuality rather than psychiatric disorders such as gender identity disorder, which the plaintiff is suffering from. These disorders are not admissible grounds for damages in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Finally, the Court relies on a comprehensive forensic examination, including medical, mental, genital, and chromosomal analysis, which leads to the rejection of the sex change operation.

Share the Post: