on several occasions, recognised the applicability of Article 8 – in relation to both “private life” and “family life” – to disputes concerning people's surnames and forenames (see the judgments in Burghartz

Nonetheless, since it constitutes a means of personal identification and a link to a family, an individual’s name does concern his or her private and family life (Burghartz v.

It encompasses elements such as names (see Burghartz   v. Switzerland , judgment of 22   February 1994, Series   A no.

    The applicant submitted that only “strong reasons” could justify inequality of treatment on grounds of sex, which precept could already be deduced from the judgment in the case of Burghartz

the member States of the Council of Europe and that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz

Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz

Previous cases concerned claims by a member of one sex for a right or advantage available to the other sex, for example, concerning names ( Burghartz v.

aspects are compatible with private life conceived of as including the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, in professional or business contexts as in others (see Burghartz

forename fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention since the name, as a means of personal identification, concerns an individual’s private and family life (see, among many other authorities, Burghartz

Europe and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference of treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Konstantin Markin , cited above, § 127; Burghartz

    As the Court highlighted (concerning family names) in the case of Burghartz v. Switzerland (22 February 1994, § 24, Series A no.

Under this principle protection is given to the personal sphere of each individual, including the right to establish details of their identity as individual human beings (see Burghartz v.

complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, the applicants disagreed, pointing to a number of cases in which the Court had dealt with similar issues on the merits, for example: Burghartz

goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference of treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz

France , 25 March 1992, § 63, Series A no. 232 ‑ C; Burghartz v.

  Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII; and Burghartz v. Switzerland , 22   February   1994, Series A no. 280 ‑ B).