CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1994 Burghartz v. Switzerland - 16213/90 Judgment 22.2.1994 Article 14 Discrimination Husband not able to put his own surname in front of his wife's, which had been taken as the family name: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Whether the wife a victim Having regard to the concept of family which prevailed in the Convention system, the wife could claim to be a victim, at least indirectly, of the impugned decisions. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Arguments on appeal (Berufung) identical in substance with those submitted to the Commission.   Public-law appeal's subsidiary nature prevented it from being considered in this instance an adequate remedy.   Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 8 A.   Applicability Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 could not replace Article 8 of the Convention or reduce its scope.   Person's name concerned his or her private and family life as a means of personal identification and of linking to a family.   Society's and the State's interest in regulating the use of names was compatible with private life conceived of as including, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, in professional or business contexts as in others. Conclusion : Article 8 applicable (six votes to three). B.   Compliance Husband's addition of his own surname to his wife's adopted as the joint family name would not reflect family unity less than the converse arrangement.   No genuine tradition in the matter.   Choice of one of the surnames as the family name in preference to the other did not represent greater deliberateness on the part of the husband than on the part of the wife.   Other types of surname could not be regarded as equivalent to the legal family name. Conclusion : violation (five votes to four). Unnecessary to determine whether there had also been a breach of Article 8 taken alone (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION Costs incurred before the national authorities and the Convention institutions: reimbursement awarded on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay the applicants a specified sum (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes