CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 31 mars 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        Application No. 14562/89                       by H.O.                       against Austria           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 31 March 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  G. SPERDUTI                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            MM.    F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                    Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 2 January 1989 by H.O. against Austria and registered on 20 January 1989 under file No. 14562/89;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is an Austrian citizen.   He lives in Salzburg and is represented before the Commission by Mr. W. Haslauer, lawyer, of Salzburg.         The applicant's daughter was born on 12 October 1985.   As required by Austrian law the applicant and his wife made a written declaration concerning the names of the child, "Keren Katharina Ingeborg".   On 2 January 1986 the Salzburg Registration Office (Standesamtsverband) declined to enter the first name in the register as it was "not common" and therefore failed to comply with Section 21 (2) of the Registration Act (Personenstandsgesetz) which provides as follows:   (Translation)         "(2) .... at least the first forename must correspond to       the gender of the child; names which are not common or are       detrimental to the child's well being shall not be       registered."   (German)         "(2) ... zumindest der erste Vorname [muß] dem Geschlecht       des Kindes entsprechen; Bezeichnungen, die nicht als       Vornamen gebräuchlich oder dem Wohl des Kindes abträglich       sind, dürfen nicht eingetragen werden."         The Salzburg Regional Authority (Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung) rejected the applicant's appeal (Berufung) by a decision of 12 June 1986.   Referring to a statement by the Minister of the Interior, it found that the first name "Keren" had not been registered in a single case.   The existence of a similar name in the Old Testament (Job 42, 15) or the existence of the word as a plural in Greek mythology did not make the name "common".   An opinion from the "Gesellschaft für Deutsche Sprache" in Wiesbaden had considered that the reference to Job would mean that the entire name "Kerenhappuch" should be used; the reference to Greek mythology was irrelevant.   The authority noted that in order to appear in the official registers as a forename, it had to have been reported at least five times in a particular year. The authority concluded that one reference in the Old Testament and a reference in Greek mythology did not meet the requirement that the name be "common".   A single reference in a television series did not prove anything.   Accordingly, the appeal was unsuccessful.         The Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichthof), on a further appeal (Beschwerde) by the applicant,   declined to deal with the case, and transmitted it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 26 February 1987.         The Administrative Court, in a decision of 22 June 1987, found that the further appeal was ill-founded.   It noted that the Registration Act had been introduced only in 1983, and found that Section 2 (2) of the Act applied to the applicants.   It was clear from the inquiries made by the authorities that "Keren" was not common either in Austria or abroad.   Accordingly, the Court did not see the need to consider whether the name could be seen as corresponding to the child's gender.       COMPLAINTS         The applicant has complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, considering that parents' right to choose their child's name falls within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 8 para. 1, and that the requirement of a "common" name has nothing to do with any of the grounds set out in Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.       PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 2 January 1989 and registered on 20 January 1989.         On 3 December 1990 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to request their observations on its admissibility and merits.         The Government submitted their observations on 22 February 1991 and the applicant submitted his observations in reply on 26 April 1991.         On 17 December 1991 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that an agreement had been reached with the respondent Government whereby "Keren" would be entered in the Register and the sum of AS 56,616.60 for costs, together with a lump sum of AS 15,000 would be paid to the applicant.         On 31 January 1992 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that, pursuant to the agreement between himself and the Government, the applicant wished to withdraw the application.       REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The applicant has complained that the name "Keren" could not be registered as his daughter's name.   He has now reached an agreed solution with the respondent Government and wishes to withdraw the application.         The Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition as the matter has now been resolved.   It further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.     Secretary to the Commission                  President of the Commission           (H. C. KRÜGER)                               (C. A. NØRGAARD)