Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here


No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Tilburg Law Review

<title> ABSTRACT </title>The applicant was born in 1948 as a male child. In 1990, the applicant instituted proceedings before the Schöneberg District Court, asking it to change the first name Bernhard Friedrich into Carola Brenda. The District Court granted this request and considered the applicant as a male to female transsexual. In 1992 Van Kück brought an action with the Berlin Regional Court against a private health insurance company. Having been affiliated to this company since 1975, she claimed reimbursement of pharmaceutical expenses for hormone treatment. Furthermore she requested a declaratory judgment to the effect that the company was liable to reimburse 50% of the expenses for gender reassignment operations and further hormone treatment. The Regional Court dismissed her claims. She then lodged an appeal with the Berlin Court of Appeal but unsuccessfully; in 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal on two grounds: first, she could not prove the necessity of the gender re-assignment measures - Ms Van Kück had undergone a gender re-assignment surgery in November 1994 - and, secondly, she herself had deliberately caused her disease of transsexuality. Ultimately, she went to the European Court of Human Rights, and claimed that the German courts had violated her right to a fair hearing of article 6 §1 of the Convention, next to her right to respect for her private life within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention. The Court agreed with Van Kück that there has been a violation of article 6 §1 as well as of article 8 of the Convention.<?CTRLerr type="1" mess="PBlanc posé à Verifier !" ?> What follows is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, as far as relevant (the dissenting opinion of Judges Cabral Barrreto, Hedigan and Greve and the concurring opinion of Judge Ress are also omitted):


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Tilburg Law Review — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation