CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 2007

.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. 97 May 2007 Oya Ataman v. Turkey - 47738/99 Judgment 22.5.2007 [Section IV] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Applicant's failure to keep the Court informed of developments relevant to her application: admissible case struck out   Facts and initial procedure before the Court : The applicant complained that the refusal of the national authorities to allow her and her husband to bear her maiden name as their family name amounted to a violation of Articles   8 and 14 of the Convention. The case was declared admissible in 2006. The Government later submitted that the applicant has ceased to be a victim of a violation of the Convention on account of her divorce in 2003. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37(1)(c). The applicant asked the Court to rule on the merits, claiming that she remained a victim of a violation of Articles   8 and 14 since she had been obliged to change her surname both upon marrying and after her divorce. Taking into account her profession, this meant that she had been obliged to reintroduce herself constantly. Law : Since the applicant had given a clear indication that she intended to pursue her application, Article   37(1)(a) was not applicable. Neither could the matter be considered to have been resolved within the meaning of Article   37(1)(b) since, even if the circumstances directly complained of by the applicant no longer prevailed, the effects of a possible violation of the Convention had not been redressed by the domestic authorities. The Court enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in striking out an application pursuant to Article   37(1)(c), it being understood, however, that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the applicant's complaint concerned her inability, due to domestic law, to use her maiden name as the family name of the couple. In the meantime however it had appeared that she had divorced, a fact which she had failed to mention to the Court until May 2006 notwithstanding the terms of Rule 47 (6) of the Rules of Court according to which applicants are required to keep the Court informed of developments relevant to their application. In the light of that divorce the matter complained of no longer concerned a live issue and it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the case within the meaning of Article   37(1)(c) of the Convention. Nor were there any reasons of a general character which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article. Conclusion : struck out of the list (unanimously). Note also Rule 44A of the Rules of Court, on the parties' duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings before it.   © 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