European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 20390/07
Nataliya Volodymyrivna GARNAGA
against Ukraine
lodged on 2 April 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nataliya Volodymyrivna Garnaga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Bila Tserkva.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 24 March 2003 the applicant lodged a request with the Civil Status Registration Office in Bila Tserkva (hereinafter “the Registration Office”) seeking to change her patronymic (a patronymic can be described as a second given name derived from the father’s given name with the appropriate gender suffix) from Volodymyrivna (?????????????) to Yuriyivna (???????).

By a letter of 27 March 2003 the Registration Office refused the applicant’s request.

On 23 April 2004 the applicant challenged this refusal in the Bila Tserkva Local Court. She complained that her patronymic, along with her first name and family name, was part of her full name and she had the right to change it. She considered that the new legislation enacted in 2004, namely the new Civil Code and the new Family Code, restricted her rights in a manner incompatible with the Constitution.

On 5 May 2004 the applicant changed her original family name from Glazkova to the name of her stepfather, Garnaga, the latter also being the family name of her mother and half-brother.

On 10 June 2004 the Bila Tserkva Local Court found that the Registration Office had acted in accordance with the law, namely Article 149 of the Family Code of 2002, and rejected the applicant’s complaint.

On 3 December 2004 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court, holding that its conclusions were based on law.

The applicant appealed on points of law. On 14 September 2005 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that her appeal was being transferred to the Higher Administrative Court in accordance with new procedural legislation.

On 31 October 2006 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held in particular that the applicant’s arguments that the new Family Code narrowed the right to change a patronymic were based on her incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Article 191 of the Family Code of 1969.

B.  Relevant domestic law

1.  The Family Code 1969

Article 191
Place and procedure for registration of a change of family name, first name, or patronymic

“Registration of a change of family name, first name or patronymic of a citizen of Ukraine shall be conducted by civil status registration offices at their place of residence.

Registration of a change of family name, first name or patronymic shall be notified to those civil status registration offices in Ukraine which keep records of births, marriages and divorces of those who have changed their family names, first names, or patronymics.”

2.  The Civil Code 2003 (in force since 1 January 2004)

Article 28
An individual’s name

“1.  An individual acquires rights and responsibilities and implements them under his or her own name.

The name of an individual who is a citizen of Ukraine consists of family name, first name and patronymic, unless the law or custom of the national minority to which they belong provides otherwise...”

Article 294
Right to a name

“1.  An individual has the right to a name...”

Article 295
The right to change a name

“1.  An individual who has reached the age of sixteen has the right to change his or her family name and first name in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

...

3.  An individual’s patronymic can be changed if his or her father changes his first name...”

3.  The Family Code 2002 (in force since 1 January 2004)

Article 149
Change of patronymic

“1.  If a father changes his name, the patronymic of his child who has reached fourteen years shall be changed with his or her consent.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities interfered in her private life by refusing to change her patronymic. She noted that for many years she lived in a family with her stepfather, mother and half-brother and wanted to associate herself more closely with them by taking the family name of her stepfather and a patronymic derived from the stepfather’s given name. Although she was allowed to change her family name, her patronymic could not be changed due to new legislation which unnecessarily restricted her right to change her patronymic.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?