CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 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. 110 July 2008 Daróczy v. Hungary - 44378/05 Judgment 1.7.2008 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Applicant obliged to change the name she had taken more than fifty years previously: violation   Facts : In 1950 the applicant married Mr Tibor Ipoly Daróczy and chose to take his name by adding the suffix -né . Since her husband normally only used his first name, the applicant was registered as Tiborné Daróczy, whereas under the applicable law at the material time she could only have chosen to bear her husband’s full name, in which case her correct married name would have been Tibor Ipolné Daróczy. However, this mistake was not revealed until 2004, after her husband’s death, when the applicant lost her identity card and was issued a new one bearing the corrected version of her name. The applicant subsequently sought permission to use the name she had borne for over fifty years (Tiborné Daróczy), but the competent Ministry informed her that it was not possible for her to change her name to a form other than her late husband’s full name. Law : The State’s reluctance to allow the applicant to use the name she wished amounted to an interference with her private life. The applicant had started to use the name Tiborné Daróczy in 1950, when she married. Whether or not this had been the correct way to use her married name at the time was not decisive. She had used that version of her name in all aspects of her official life: State authorities had issued her with several official documents, including her identity card, she had been entered on the electoral register and been able to open a bank account using that name. While it was true that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation concerning the regulation of names, they could not disregard the importance of names in the lives of private individuals as central elements of self-identification and self‑definition. Formal reference to the legitimate aim of ensuring the authenticity of the State Registry could not justify, in the absence of any actual prejudice to the rights of others, a restriction of the right protected by Article 8. Further, the Government had not put forward any convincing arguments showing that the genuineness of the system of State registries or the rights of the applicant’s late husband had been at real risk. Nothing indicated that the late Mr   Tibor   Daróczy had used his name in another form and, therefore, it was implausible that the applicant’s intention to continue using her name could infringe his rights, still less after his death. The restriction imposed was unacceptably rigid and completely disregarded the applicant’s interests, in that she had been forced to alter a name which she had used for more than 50 years and which moreover gave her a strong personal link to her husband. A fair balance had therefore not been struck between the public interest relied on by the Government and the interests of the applicant under Article 8. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,500   in respect of 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