CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 septembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   572 6.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT JOHANSSON v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Johansson v. Finland (application no. 10163/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the refusal of the Finnish authorities to register the forename “Axl” for the applicants’son.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 2,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,970 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mika Johansson and Jaana Johansson, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1970 and 1967 respectively and live in Rajamäki (Finland).   The applicants decided to give the name “Axl Mick” to their son born in May 1999. However, the Hyvinkää Population Registration Authority refused to register this forename under section 32b, subsections 2(1) and 3(2) of the Names Act as this form of spelling did not comply with Finnish name practice. The applicants appealed against this decision.   On 3   October 2000, the Helsinki Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal. The court considered that according to the Names Act, a name could be accepted, although being incompatible with domestic name practice, 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, or for other valid reasons. The court concluded that the arguments presented by the applicants were insufficient to allow the forename to be registered.   This decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 20 September 2001.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 February 2002 and declared admissible on 7 November 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained about the refusal to register the forename “Axl” for their son.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The   Court accepted that the protection of the child from an unsuitable name, such as ridiculous or whimsical names, and the preservation of a national name practice are in the public interest. The Court observed that the domestic authorities have a broad discretion in applying the Names Act in each particular case.   The Court noted the name “Axl” had been used within the family circle since the applicants' son's birth in 1999 without any difficulty. The chosen forename “Axl” cannot be seen to differ vastly from names which are commonly used in Finland, such as “Alf” and “Ulf”. The name was not ridiculous or whimsical, nor was it likely to prejudice the child, and it appears that it has not done so. It was also pronounceable in the Finnish language and used in some other countries. Had a vowel not been elided, it would automatically have been officially registered as a forename. Subsequently, the name cannot therefore be deemed unsuitable for a child.   The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the name “Axl” had not been “new” since three persons named “Axl” were found in the official Population Information System when the applicants' son was born, and, subsequently, at least two other children have been given this name and four of them were Finnish nationals. It is therefore apparent that this name had already gained acceptance in Finland, and it has not been contended that this has had any negative consequences for the preservation of the cultural and linguistic identity of Finland.   Accordingly, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 14   The Court observed that this complaint is closely linked to the complaint under Article 8 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the additional complaint under Article 14.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.