Enforcing jurisdiction
Hungary · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság – CJEU Judgment (Hungary, 2025)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union13 March 2025Hungary
final
CJEU Judgment

CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action

This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The Court of Justice ruled on a case involving a trans person seeking to correct their gender in official records. The court addressed whether authorities must update personal data to reflect changes in gender identity. This ruling could impact how personal data is managed for individuals undergoing gender transitions.

What happened

The Court of Justice ruled on the obligation of authorities to rectify personal data regarding gender when it no longer reflects the individual's identity.

Who was affected

A trans person in Hungary who sought to change their gender and name in the asylum register.

What the authority found

The Court held that authorities must rectify personal data to ensure accuracy, as required by GDPR, when an individual's gender has changed.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how personal data related to gender identity should be handled, emphasizing the need for accuracy and respect for individual identity in official records.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 16 GDPR
Art. 23(1)(e) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 16(GDPR)
Art. 23(1)(e) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityFővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary)

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject is a trans person who was granted refugee status in Hungary. When applying for this status, they pointed out that they identified as male and relied on their transsexuality as the ground for their recognition as a refugee. However, the Hungarian National Directorate-General for Immigration Policing (Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, the controller) recorded them in the register as female. In 2022, the data subject, pursuant to Article 16 GDPR, submitted a request to the controller to rectify the asylum register in two particulars: a change of the name under which they had been registered and a change of gender from female to male. On 11 October 2022, the controller rejected the request, arguing that the documents provided by the data subject did not prove that they had undergone gender reassignment surgery and that the applicant’s gender had changed. Therefore, the data subject brought proceedings before the Budapest High Court (Fővárosi Törvényszék). This court, having doubts regarding the interpretation of Article 16 GDPR, stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU: # Must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, in connection with the exercise of the rights of the data subject, the authority responsible for keeping registers under national law is required to rectify the personal data relating to the gender of that data subject recorded by that authority, where those data have changed after they were entered in the register and therefore do not comply with the principle of accuracy established in Article 5(1)(d) of the GDPR? # If the answer to the first question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it requires the person requesting rectification of the data relating to his or her gender to provide evidence in support of the request for rectification? # If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 16 of the GD

Outcome

CJEU Case

A judgment or Advocate General opinion in a case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság in HU

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Judgment Date

13 March 2025

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság - Hungary (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: