CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mars 2001

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 28 March 2001 Halimi v. France (dec.) - 50614/99 Decision 20.3.2001 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Refusal of authorities to allow a change of name: inadmissible The applicant is a public figure known by the name Gisèle Halimi. In 1951 she married Mr   E.P. Halimi. It was her second marriage. She enrolled at the Paris Bar in her married name. According to the judgment pronouncing the divorce in 1959, Mr Halimi did not object to his former wife’s continuing to use his surname. In 1961 the applicant married Mr Faux and continued her career as a lawyer, militant, writer and a politician both locally and internationally, using the name “Halimi”. In 1962 Mr Halimi objected to his former wife being referred to as “Halimi” in the records of the authorities and the Family-Allowance Department, but not to her continuing to use that name professionally and in her public life. In December 1987 the applicant started proceedings to obtain permission to change her surname from “Taïeb” to “Halimi”. On 20 December 1993 the Conseil d’État dismissed her application finding, inter alia , that such a change could be prejudicial to Mr Halimi’s family. The applicant instituted a second set of proceedings for permission to use the surname “Gisèle-Halimi”. The Minister of Justice granted her permission by decree but that was quashed in 1999 by the Conseil d’État . Inadmissible under Article 8: as regards the applicability of Article 8, it had to be recognised that a refusal to allow a change of the applicant’s legal surname to one under which she had became relatively well-known could have a bearing on her private and professional life. The subject-matter of the complaint therefore came within the scope of Article 8. As to whether there had been an interference, the authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant to adopt a particular surname could not necessarily be regarded as an interference. By objecting to the authorities’ using the name “Halimi” when dealing with the applicant Mr Halimi had thereby deprived her of the use of his surname in her private life. Apart from the fact that many personalities use pseudonyms in their public life in order to preserve their privacy, the applicant had not established clearly how her inability to use that name in her private life was damaging to her. Furthermore, the applicant used the name in question freely in her professional and public life. All that had been denied her was legal recognition of her right to use the surname she used in practice and that had no incidence on the professional and public use which she made of it. Consequently, the applicant could not validly complain of inconvenience caused   to her career by the refusal and it was unlikely that her right to respect for her private life had been infringed in any material way. However, even if there had been an interference, it had indisputably been in accordance with the law and protected the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. As to the necessity for the interference, it had to be observed that although the surname (“Gisèle Halimi”) which the applicant sought to use was not identical to the her former husband’s surname, it could be a source of confusion between them. In addition, the interference was limited in extent since the only consequence of the refusal to allow her to change her legal name was to prevent her using it in her private life. The applicant had not acquired any right to use her former husband’s surname by the fact that she had done so during the marriage and subsequently in her public life and, accordingly, she could not validly complain of infringement of her personal rights: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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