CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 346 27.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1]   Ciubotaru v. Moldova (application no. 27138/04)   REFUSAL TO CHANGE ETHNIC IDENTITY IN PERSONAL IDENTITY PAPERS BREACHED THE CONVENTION   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mihai Ciubotaru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. He is a writer and a professor of French.   In 2002, when applying to have his old Soviet identity card replaced with a Moldovan one, he submitted that his ethnicity was Romanian. As he was advised that his application would not be accepted unless he indicated his identity was Moldovan, he complied.   Shortly afterwards he requested the relevant State authority to change his identity from “Moldovan” to “Romanian”. His request was refused with the argument that since his parents had not been recorded as ethnic Romanians in their birth and marriage certificates, it was impossible for him to be recorded as an ethnic Romanian. Mr Ciubotaru complained unsuccessfully numerous times about it to various officials, following which he brought proceedings in court against the relevant State authority. He asked to have his identity changed in his papers as he did not consider himself an ethnic Moldovan. His request was dismissed by the domestic courts with the same argument as the one advanced by the State administrative authority.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 8, Mr Ciubotaru complained of the authorities’ refusal to register his Romanian ethnic identity in his identity papers.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 July 2004   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that, along with such aspects as name, gender, religion and sexual orientation, an individual’s ethnic identity constituted an essential aspect of his or her private life and identity, and thus fell under the protection of Article 8.   Aware of the highly sensitive nature of the issues involved in the present case, the Court distanced itself from the debate within Moldovan society concerning the ethnic identity of the main ethnic group. It took as a working basis the legislation of the Republic of Moldova and the official position of the Moldovan authorities when referring to Moldovans and Romanians.   As regards the requirement by the Moldovan authorities of proof of the ethnic origin of the applicant’s parents, the Court did not dispute the right of a Government to require the existence of objective evidence of a claimed ethnicity. It was also ready to accept that it should be open to the authorities to refuse a claim to be officially recorded as belonging to a particular ethnicity where such a claim was based on purely subjective and unsubstantiated grounds.   However, Mr Ciubotaru appeared to have been confronted with a legal requirement making it impossible for him to support his claim. The relevant law and practice of recording ethnic identity had created insurmountable barriers before people who wished to have a different ethnic identity registered in respect of themselves as compared to that recorded in respect of their parents by the Soviet authorities in the past. According to the law, the applicant could have changed his ethnic identity only if he had shown that one of his parents had been recorded in the official records as being of Romanian ethnicity. However, during the Soviet times, the population of Moldova had been systematically registered as being of Moldovan ethnicity, with very few exceptions the criteria for which had been unclear. Therefore, by asking Mr Ciubotaru to show that his parents had been registered as being of Romanian ethnicity, the authorities had placed a disproportionate burden on him in view of the historical realities of the Republic of Moldova.   The Court further observed that Mr Ciubotaru’s claim was based on more than his subjective perception of his own ethnicity. It was clear that he was able to provide objectively verifiable links with the Romanian ethnic group such as language, name, empathy and others. However, no such objective evidence could be relied upon under the Moldovan law in force.   The applicant had been unable to have his claim that he belonged to a certain ethnic group examined in the light of the objectively verifiable evidence presented in support of that claim. Having had regard to the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court concluded that the existing procedure for Mr Ciubotaru to have his recorded ethnicity changed did not comply with Moldova’s obligations under the Convention to safeguard his right to respect for his private life. There has therefore been a breach of Article 8.     Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Moldova was to pay Mr Ciubotaru 1.500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3.500 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.