Judgment of the Court of Justice Fourth Chamber, 6 March 2025, Anikovi, C-395/23

• Date: 06 March 2025
• Year: 2025

9

only in compliance with Article 23 of the GDPR. The Court explains that the right to rectification may

be subject to restrictions in the context of the keeping of public registers that are kept for reasons of

general public interest, in particular in order to ensure the reliability and consistency of those

registers.

In t he present case, the Member State concerned has adopted an ad ministrativ e practice whereby the

exercise, by a transgender person, of their right to rectification of data relating to their gender

identity, contained in a public register, is conditional upon the production of evidence of gender

reassignment surgery. Such an administrative practice gives rise to a restriction of the right to

rectificatio n.

In that regard, the Court notes, first, that such an administrative practice does not satisfy the

requirement that a Member State’s law may restrict the scope of the right to rectification only by

means of legislat ive measu res.

Second, t hat administrative pract ice undermines, inter alia, t he essence of t he right to t he integrity of

the person and the right to respect for private life, referred t o in Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter

respectively. The Court recalls, in that context, that the European Court of Human Rights has held,

inter alia, t hat t he recognition of the gender identity of a transgender person cannot be made

condit ional upo n the com pletion of a surgical treatment not desired by that person. 12

Third and lastly, such an administrative practice is not, in any event, either necessary or proportionate

in order t o ensure the reliability and consist ency o f a public regist er, such as the asylum register, sinc e

a medical certificat e, including a psy chiatric diagnosis, may constitute relev ant and sufficient evidence

in t hat regard .

Thus, the Court concludes that Article 16 of the GDPR must be interpreted as meaning that, for the

purposes of exercising the right to rectification of the personal data relating to the gender identity of

a natural person that are contained in a public register, that person may be required to provide

relevant and sufficient evidence that may reasonably be required of that person in order to establish

that those data are inaccurate. However, a Member State may not, under any circumstances, by way

of an administrative practice, make the exercise of that right conditional upon the production of

evidence o f gend er reassignm ent surgery .

IV. JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN C IVIL MATTERS

1. BRUSSELS IIb REGULATION

Judgment of the Court of Justi ce (Fourth Chamber), 6 March 2025, Aniko vi, C-395/23

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 –

Sco pe – Article 1(1)(b) and (2)(e) – Measure relating to the dispo sal of the p roperty of a ch ild – Article 7 –

Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility – Article 10 – Choice of court – Regula tion (EU)

No 1215/2012 – Scope – Article 1(2)(a) – Exclusion concerning the status or legal capacity of natural

pe rso n s – Rules on jurisdiction laid down in a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and

the Russian Federation concluded before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European

Uni on – Difference between those rules and the rules laid down in Regulation 2019/1111 – Article 351

TFEU – Concept of ‘incompatibility’

12 See, to that effect, ECtHR , 19 January 2019, X and Y v. Romania, ( CE:ECHR:2021:0119JUD000214516, para graph s 165 and 167 and th e case-law

cited) .