Alexander Schuster

Questo lavoro preliminare indaga la prassi applicativa dopo le due importanti sentenze del 2015 della Corte di Cassazione e della Corte costituzionale sulla riattribuzione del genere anagrafico, le quali hanno statuito che l'intervento chirurgico non è una condizione necessaria. Tramite l'analisi di diversi provvedimenti emessi, l'Autore mostra come l'interpretazione della legge n. 164/1982 sia ancora pesantemente influenzata da un approccio patologico e, nella migliore delle ipotesi, medico all'identità di genere. Nonostante spesso si affermi di muovere dalla prospettiva dei diritti fondamentali, i giudici si rifanno quasi esclusivamente alle consulenze mediche e all'aspetto fisico. Così facendo, rifiutano di adottare un approccio rispettoso dell'autodeterminazione e dell'identità personale di ognuno. Lo scritto offre alcuni suggerimenti su come i giudici dovrebbero ricollocare il diritto in gioco in un quadro più ampio e conseguentemente ridefinire gli elementi di prova utili ad accertare l'identità delle persone.
********
This working paper addresses the law in action after the two leading judgments of 2015 by the Italian Supreme Court and Constitutional Court on legal gender reassignment, when both stated that surgery is not a requirement. By reviewing real judicial orders and judgments, the Author shows how the interpretation of the law no 164/1982 is still heavily influenced by a pathological and at best a medical approach to gender identity. Despite affirming prominently a fundamental rights perspective, judges rely almost exclusively on medical expertise and on physical appearance. They so refuse to take an approach respectful of self-determination and one's personal identity. The paper suggests how judges should reconceptualise the framework of the right at stake and consequently redefine the evidence necessary to ascertain one's identity.

A note on two judgments on the forced divorce for trans people, the first is the Italian Constitutional Court decision no 170 of July 2014, the second and the one I took care of, the ECtHR Hämäläinen v. Finland Grand Chamber judgment of July 2014, no 37359/09

Internazionalizzazione delle fonti–Diritto penale nazionale e internazionale–Diritto penale e giurisprudenza CEDU–Scienza, tecnologia e flussi giuridici transnazionali–Scienza e giudici in dialogo–Fonti nazionali del biodiritto–Deontologia delle professioni sanitarie–Etica e politiche in Europa–Technology assessment ed expertise etica–Diritti partecipativi

This short essay in Italian argues that the principle of equality acts as a factor of European integration. Although the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice of the EU has long relied on different approaches, there is a growing conceptual and methodological convergence. We see there the rise of a common idea of legal actor underpinning both systems of human rights protection.

The ethical and legal debate on end-of-life decisions has gained momentum in the past two decades. The book under review focuses on the latter aspect and contributes to an updated understanding of the legal evolution in and outside Europe. The fil rouge of the chapters are advance care directives with special regard to euthanasia and assisted suicide... [read more]

A comment in Italian to the ECtHR judgment Gas et Dubois v. France and to the Italian Supreme Court judgment no. 4148/2012 on the (non) recognition of a Dutch same-gender marriage involving two Italian citizens. Both decisions were delivered on 15 March 2012.

A comment to three cases that focus on gender identity in Italy. One concerns minors and authorisation to undergo surgery, another legal gender reassignment without sterilisation and surgery (still an exception in Italy) and a last one on mandatory divorce after gender reassignment (divorce annotated by the civil status registrar in the absence of any statement on this point by the court deciding on legal gender reassignment and the new name).