2006 EU rules trans women should receive their pension in the UK

2006 EU rules trans women should receive their pension in the UK.

In 2006, a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) established that trans women in the 

UK

 were entitled to receive their state pension at age 60, the same as other women at that time. 

The Landmark Ruling: Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2006) 

• The Individual: The case was brought by Sarah Margaret Richards, a trans woman who underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2001.
• The Conflict: When she turned 60 in 2002, she applied for her state pension. The UK government refused, arguing that because she was born male, she must wait until 65 (the male retirement age at the time).
• The Legal Basis: Richards argued this treatment violated EU Directive 79/7/EEC, which mandates equal treatment for men and women in social security matters.
• The Decision: On 27 April 2006, the ECJ ruled that denying her a pension at 60 constituted direct discrimination based on sex. The court held that once a person has undergone gender reassignment surgery and fulfilled national criteria for living in their new gender, they must be treated as that gender for pension purposes. 

Implementation and Involvement

• Government Response: The UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was obliged to follow the ruling, leading to the payment of arrears to trans women who had been denied their pensions.
• Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA): While the UK had already passed the GRA to allow legal gender changes via Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs), it was not retrospective. The Richards ruling filled the gap for those who reached retirement age before the Act or its full implementation.
• Advocacy Groups: The civil rights group Press For Change was heavily involved in supporting the case and providing guidance to trans individuals on how to claim back-dated pensions. 

A later 2018 case, MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, further refined these rules by striking down the requirement that trans people must annul their existing marriages to receive their pension. 

The 2006 Richards ruling was a massive win, but it left a painful “spousal veto” loophole that took another decade to close. Here is the breakdown of the community response and the subsequent MB battle.

Community Reaction to the 2006 Ruling

The response from the trans community and advocacy groups like Press For Change was one of cautious victory.

• Immediate Relief: Trans women could finally claim pensions at age 60, provided they had undergone surgery.
• The “Surgery” Frustration: A major criticism was the court’s focus on physical surgery as a requirement for recognition. This excluded many who lived in their new gender but had not had (or did not want) surgery.
• Backpay Challenges: While the ruling allowed for backdated payments, many found the process of dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cumbersome and opaque. 

The MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2018)

While Richards (2006) dealt with the right to the pension, the MB Case tackled a cruel choice: your marriage or your money. 

1. The Conflict: MB had lived as a woman since 1991 and had surgery in 1995. However, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 required married trans people to annul their marriage to get a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), because same-sex marriage was illegal.
2. The Stand: MB refused to annul her marriage, stating she wanted to stay with her wife “in the sight of God”. Because she had no GRC, the DWP refused her the female pension at 60.
3. The Legal Battle: After a 10-year fight reaching the Supreme Court, the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
4. The Result: On 26 June 2018, the ECJ ruled that the marriage annulment requirement was “unrelated” to the pension scheme and constituted direct discrimination based on sex. 

Impact of the MB Ruling

The Court of Justice ruling was hailed as a “groundbreaking” moment for trans rights. It effectively ended the state’s ability to force the dissolution of long-standing marriages as a condition for social security benefits.

2026EXP