CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 112 October 2008 Güzel Erdagöz v. Turkey - 37483/02 Judgment 21.10.2008 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to rectify spelling of a forename in the registry of births, deaths and marriages: violation   Facts : The applicant was unable to obtain payment of certain benefits because of differences in the spelling of her forename in the State records. It had been entered in the register of births, deaths and marriages in 1933 as “Güzel”. However, her family and friends had always known her as “Gözel” and in 2000 she issued court proceedings for the rectification of that entry. Her application was dismissed at first instance and subsequently by the Court of Cassation on the grounds that the spelling used by the applicant reflected a regional pronunciation that was not in the dictionary of the Turkish language. Law : The Court reiterated that disputes relating to individuals’ surnames and forenames came within Article 8 and that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin appreciation in that particular sphere. The domestic courts had not cited any statutory provisions or public or private interests that competed with the applicant’s legitimate interest. The reasoning of the lower courts appeared to have been based not on any clearly established legislation but mainly on the applicant’s preference for a spelling of her forename that was not in the dictionary of the Turkish language. A general bar on the registration of names that were not in the dictionary would be difficult to reconcile with Article 8 or the extremely diverse linguistic origins of Turkish forenames. Accordingly, Turkish law had failed to indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the authorities’ discretion when it came to applications for the rectification of forenames and there were no adequate safeguards against the abuse that could result from the application of such restrictions. There was nothing to suggest that amending the applicant’s forename was liable to undermine order or any public interest. The dismissal of her application could not, therefore, be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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