Law 164/1982: gender rectification in Italy

Law No. 164 of April 14, 1982, titled “Rules on the rectification of sex attribution,” represents the legal foundation through which transgender people in Italy can obtain legal recognition of their gender identity. Enacted by President of the Republic Sandro Pertini and published in the Official Gazette on April 19, 1982 [1], this law made Italy one of the first countries in Europe to regulate the matter, placing it after Sweden (1972) and West Germany (1980) in the continental legislative landscape [6]. Over forty years after its entry into force, Law 164 remains the reference legislative pillar, although constitutional and supreme court case law has profoundly redefined its interpretation and application.

Historical context and passage

Italy before Law 164

Before 1982, transgender people in Italy lived in a condition of complete legal invisibility. There was no legal instrument for modifying legal sex or name on identity documents. On the contrary, the legal system contained repressive provisions: Article 85 of the 1940 Public Safety Act punished cross-dressing in public, while Law 1423 of 1956 allowed prosecution of those who habitually engaged in “activities contrary to public morals” [6]. Trans people were thus exposed to criminal sanctions, social marginalization, and the impossibility of obtaining documents consistent with their identity.

A turning point came in 1979, when the Constitutional Court, with a ruling dated July 12, implicitly recognized the need for legislative intervention on the matter, opening a window in the legal and political debate [6].

The parliamentary process

The legislative proposal arose from the initiative of activists from FUORI (United Homosexual Revolutionary Italian Front), particularly Enzo Cucco and Enzo Francone, who drafted a legislative text in October 1979. The Italian Transsexual Movement (MIT) and the Radical Party were instrumental in advancing the parliamentary battle [6].

The legislative process was strategically conducted in parliamentary committees rather than in the full chambers, in order to avoid a public debate that could have hindered passage. The bill was passed in first reading on October 2, 1981. Subsequently, in the Senate, the text was merged with a proposal submitted by senators from the Christian Democracy party — including Rosi, Di Lembo, Bausi, De Giuseppe, Fracassi, and Fimognari — and structured in seven articles. The Senate Justice Committee approved the text in deliberative session on February 16, 1982. Final approval came in the Chamber on April 1, 1982 in the competent Committee, with a unanimous vote of twenty-four in favor out of twenty-four present [6].

Despite the seemingly straightforward process, Law 164 sparked broad debate both inside and outside Parliament. However, the choice to proceed in legislative session (i.e., in committees with deliberative power) made it possible to bypass the resistance that a floor debate would inevitably have generated.

What the law provides

Structure and original content

Law 164/1982 is an extremely concise legislative text, consisting of only seven articles [1][2]. This brevity proved, over time, to be both a strength — for its interpretive flexibility — and a limitation, as it made constant supplementation through case law necessary.

The main contents of the law in its original formulation provide [1][2]:

• Article 1: establishes that the rectification of sex attribution is ordered by a final court ruling, following changes to the person’s sexual characteristics.
• Article 2: the competent court is the one in the applicant’s place of residence. The proceeding is initiated by petition.
• Article 3: the court, when it deems necessary an adjustment of sexual characteristics through medical-surgical treatment, authorizes it by ruling.
• Article 4: the rectification ruling causes the dissolution of the marriage or the cessation of the civil effects of a concordat marriage.
• Articles 5-7: regulate annotations in civil status registers, communications to competent authorities, and transitional provisions.

Requirements in historical practice

In the established practice over the decades following the law’s entry into force, legal rectification was de facto made contingent upon the execution of surgical interventions to reassign primary sexual characteristics, including sterilization of the person [8]. This restrictive interpretation, never explicitly provided by the law’s text but imposed by the case law of the era, meant that the legal transition pathway necessarily required undergoing invasive and irreversible surgical operations. This practice was subsequently subject to severe criticism from international bodies: the Council of Europe and the UN Special Rapporteur on torture defined forced sterilization as a violation of the right to physical integrity and sexual and reproductive health [8].

The Constitutional Court ruling 221/2015

The end of the surgical requirement

Ruling no. 221 of November 5, 2015 by the Constitutional Court marked a fundamental turning point in the interpretation of Law 164/1982 [3]. Already in 2015, the Court of Cassation with ruling no. 15138 had stated that surgical intervention did not constitute a necessary prerequisite for legal rectification. The Constitutional Court confirmed and strengthened this position, providing a constitutional-level ruling [3][5].

The Court recognized that the Italian legal system protects the right to gender identity as a constitutive element of the right to personal identity, fully included among the fundamental rights of the person guaranteed by Article 2 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [3][5].

The principle affirmed

The core principle of ruling 221/2015 is that surgical treatment should not be considered a prerequisite for accessing the sex rectification procedure, but rather a possible means, functional to achieving the person’s full psychophysical well-being [3][5]. The Court explicitly stated that “the exclusion of the mandatory nature of surgical intervention for the purposes of legal rectification is the corollary of an approach that — consistent with supreme constitutional values — entrusts to the individual the choice of the means through which to achieve, with the assistance of a doctor and other specialists, their own transition pathway” [3].

Legal and social significance

This ruling had a concrete impact on the lives of transgender people in Italy. It eliminated the de facto condition that made legal recognition of gender identity contingent upon an invasive surgical intervention, often unwanted and in any case burdensome in physical, psychological, and economic terms [5][8]. From that moment, the transition pathway was restored to the sphere of personal self-determination, while remaining subject to court evaluation.

The current procedure: court, evaluations, timelines

The 143/2024 Constitutional Court ruling

A further significant step came with ruling no. 143 of 2024, in which the Constitutional Court declared the unconstitutionality of Article 31, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree 150/2011, insofar as it required court authorization for surgical interventions when the changes had already occurred and had been deemed sufficient for granting rectification [4]. In essence, the Court established that when transition has already been completed (for example, through hormone therapy and psychological support), requiring further judicial authorization for surgery constitutes an irrationality. In the same ruling, the Court declared inadmissible the question regarding the introduction of a “third gender” beyond the male/female binary, deeming such an innovation to be the legislature’s responsibility [4].

The current step-by-step procedure

As of current practice, the gender rectification pathway in Italy proceeds through the following phases [7]:

1. Psychological and diagnostic pathway. The person contacts a psychologist or psychotherapist specializing in gender identity, often at centers affiliated with ONIG (National Observatory on Gender Identity) or local public facilities. A psychodiagnostic report is drafted attesting to the condition of gender dysphoria or gender incongruence (according to the WHO ICD-11 classification) and documenting the person’s stable and lasting identification with the experienced gender.

2. Optional hormone therapy. If they wish, the person undertakes hormone replacement therapy under endocrinological supervision. Hormone therapy is not a mandatory requirement, but in practice the documentation relating to the hormonal pathway is generally presented to the court in support of the application.

3. Filing the petition in court. The person, assisted by a lawyer, files a petition with the ordinary court of their place of residence [1][2]. The petition must be accompanied by medical and psychological documentation, civil status records, and the request for rectification of sex attribution and name. Following the reform introduced by Legislative Decree 150/2011, the proceeding follows the summary cognition procedure.

4. Court-appointed expert evaluation (CTU). In most cases, the judge orders a medical-legal or psychological evaluation by appointing a court expert. The expert examines the person and drafts a report that is filed with the proceedings. In some courts, when the documentation presented is particularly complete and detailed, the judge may deem the expert evaluation unnecessary [7].

5. Ruling. The court issues the ruling on the rectification of sex attribution, which entails the modification of legal sex and name in civil status registers. The ruling becomes effective upon becoming final.

6. Document updates. Following the ruling, the civil status officer of the municipality of birth makes the annotations in the registers. The person can then request the issuance of new identity documents [7].

Average timelines and regional differences

Procedure timelines are extremely variable and depend on several factors: the court’s caseload, the completeness of the documentation presented, the need for a court-appointed expert evaluation, and the individual judge’s approach. Generally, the proceeding can last from a minimum of six months to over two years [7].

There are significant regional differences: courts in Northern Italy tend to resolve proceedings more quickly than those in Central and, especially, Southern Italy. This disparity reflects the broader problem of Italian civil justice timelines, where the average duration of a first-instance proceeding ranges from about 200 days in the fastest courts (such as Aosta and Ferrara) to over three years in courts with the greatest backlog. To these structural differences are added variations in applied practice: some courts systematically require expert evaluations, while others deem them unnecessary when exhaustive clinical documentation is present; some judges adopt a more restrictive interpretation of requirements, others an approach more consistent with constitutional case law [7].

The person can access free legal aid (state-funded legal counsel) if their annual income does not exceed the threshold provided by law.

Reform proposals and self-determination

The Zan Bill and gender identity

The Zan Bill (from the name of MP Alessandro Zan), passed by the Chamber of Deputies on November 4, 2020 and rejected by the Senate on October 27, 2021, did not directly intervene on Law 164/1982, but included gender identity among the grounds for discrimination and violence to be combated through criminal law. The bill defined gender identity as “the perceived and manifested identification of oneself in relation to gender, even if not corresponding to sex, regardless of having completed a transition pathway.” Although its scope was distinct from legal rectification, the Zan Bill represented a step toward the legal recognition of gender identity outside the judicial circuit.

Proposals for simplifying the procedure

Throughout the legislatures following the passage of Law 164, various parliamentary proposals have attempted to reform the rectification procedure toward greater simplification. The Lenford Network (LGBTI+ Rights Legal Association) has developed legislative proposals aimed at eliminating the requirement of judicial proceedings, replacing them with an administrative process [12]. These proposals provide for rectification to occur upon the declaration of the interested person, without the need for medical or psychological evaluations, and for medical-surgical and hormonal treatments to be left to the self-determination of the person, with the support of a specialist who evaluates their psychophysical condition [12].

The Argentine model

The international reference point for reform proposals is the Argentine Ley de Identidad de Genero (Law 26,743), passed on May 9, 2012 [10]. This law is considered the first in the world to not pathologize trans identities and to allow the modification of civil registry data through a simple administrative procedure, without the need for medical or psychiatric diagnoses, surgical interventions, or hormonal treatments [10]. The Argentine law defines gender identity as “the internal and individual experience of gender as each person perceives it,” and guarantees access to surgical procedures and hormonal therapies for those who desire them, without the need for judicial or administrative authorization for adults [10]. This model has significantly influenced the European and Italian debate on depathologization and gender self-determination.

The current state of the debate in Italy

In Italy, the debate on reforming Law 164 remains open but has not found, to date, a legislative outcome [11]. The 19th legislature (which began in 2022) has not produced significant advances on the matter. Transgender and LGBTI+ associations continue to call for a shift to a model based on self-determination, while opposing positions invoke the need to maintain judicial review to protect both the person and the legal system. The dossier published by the Biodiritto Observatory at the University of Padua documents the state of the art of the legal debate and the various positions at play [11].

Comparison with other European countries

The self-determination model (self-ID)

Starting with Denmark, which in 2014 became the first European country to allow legal gender change through a simple declaration, the self-determination model (known internationally as self-ID) has progressively spread across the continent. As of 2025, twelve European countries have adopted legal gender recognition procedures based on self-determination: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland [9].

In Spain, the Ley Trans passed in 2023 allows people over sixteen to change their legal gender through a double appearance at the civil registry office, without any medical requirement. Germany passed the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz (Self-Determination Act) in April 2024, effective from August of the same year, which replaces the previous Transsexuellengesetz of 1980 and allows the modification of gender and name through a declaration at the registry office, with a three-month reflection period [9].

The medical-legal model

Italy falls within the group of countries that maintain a medical-legal model, in which gender rectification requires a judicial procedure and, in practice, medical-psychological documentation [9]. This model is shared, with variations, by countries such as France, the Czech Republic, Romania, and other Eastern European states. The main difference from self-ID countries is the need for a judge’s review, which entails longer timelines, legal costs, and a subjectivity in assessment that generates the territorial disparities described earlier.

Non-binary recognition

An additional element of comparison concerns the recognition of non-binary identities (people who do not identify exclusively as men or women). As of 2025, only Germany, Iceland, and Malta fully recognize a gender option other than male and female [9]. As noted, the Italian Constitutional Court, with ruling 143/2024, declared the matter inadmissible, referring it to the legislature’s discretion [4].

Summary of European models

• Pure self-determination (administrative declaration, no medical requirements): Denmark, Ireland, Malta, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, Germany [9].
• Judicial model without surgical requirement (court evaluation, medical documentation): Italy, France, Netherlands (transitioning toward self-ID), Greece.
• Model with strict medical requirements (mandatory diagnosis, in some cases still surgery): Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, some Balkan countries.

Italy’s positioning in the intermediate group reflects a situation in which case law has taken significant steps — eliminating the surgical requirement [3] and, with ruling 143/2024, reducing judicial control over reassignment surgery [4] — but the legislative framework remains anchored to the 1982 law, now more than forty years removed from both the scientific context and the European legal landscape. Law 164 was a pioneering law at the time of its passage; today, comparison with the models adopted by the majority of Western European countries highlights the need for an update that the Italian legislature has not yet undertaken [11].