CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 novembre 2006

.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. 91 November 2006 Johansson v. Finland (dec.) - 10163/02 Decision 7.11.2006 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Refusal to register forename not deemed to conform to domestic practice: admissible   Article 14 Discrimination Refusal to register forename even though the same name had been accepted in other cases: admissible   In 1999 a son was born to the applicants whose name choice “Axl Mick” was refused by the Population Registration Authority as it did not comply with the Finnish name practice. They appealed in vain, arguing that the name “Axl” was common in Denmark and Norway and was likewise used in Australia and the United States. It was pronounceable in the Finnish language and was not incompatible with the Finnish name practice any more than the name “Alf”. Furthermore, there were at least three persons with that name registered in the Finnish population information system and at any rate it was not excluded that the applicants might move abroad. A state representative supported their appeal arguing that as nowadays due to international contacts and cooperation, registration of a name could not be rejected on the sole basis that it was contrary to the domestic name practice. The Advisory Committee on Names deemed the proposed name incompatible with the Finnish name practice. In rejecting the appeal a county administrative court relied on the Names Act, according to which a name could, although being incompatible with domestic name practice, be accepted if a person on the basis of nationality, family relations or some other special circumstance had a connection with a foreign State and the proposed forename accorded with the name practice of that State. The name could also be accepted for other valid reasons but the arguments presented by the applicants had been insufficient. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention that the refusal to register the forename in question violated their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to discrimination, given that other persons with the same forename have been registered in Finland.   © 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