CASE OF LEVENTOĞLU ABDULKADİROĞLU v. TURKEY
(Application no. 7971/07)
28 May 2013
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Leventoğlu Abdulkadiroğlu v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
Article 153 of the former Civil Code (as in force until 14 May 1997)
“Married women shall bear their husband’s name. ... ”
Article 153 of the former Civil Code (as amended by Law no. 4248 of 14 May 1997), now Article 187 of the new Civil Code enacted on 22 November 2001
“Married women shall bear their husband’s name. However, they can make a written declaration to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths on signing the marriage certificate, or at the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths after the marriage, if they wish to keep their maiden name in front of their surname ...”
“All individuals shall be equal before the law without any distinction based on language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, membership of a religious sect or other similar grounds.
Women and men shall have equal rights. ....”
Article 90 (as amended by Law no. 5170 of 7 May 2004)
“... International agreements that are duly in force shall be legally binding. Their constitutionality cannot be challenged in the Constitutional Court.
In the case of a conflict between international agreements in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms that are duly in force and domestic laws on account of differences in provisions concerning the same matter, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail.”
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 8
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8;
3. Holds that it is unnecessary to consider the application under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Guido Raimondi Registrar President