European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 163

May 2013

Garnaga v. Ukraine - 20390/07

Judgment 16.5.2013 See: [2013] ECHR 437 [Section V]

Article 8

Positive obligations

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Respect for private life

Refusal to allow a change of patronymic: violation

 

Facts - In March 2004 the applicant, a Ukrainian national, lodged a request for a change of her patronymic to one derived from her stepfather’s forename. The Registration Office refused on the grounds that the Rules on Civil Status Registration provided that the patronymic of a physical person could only be changed in the event of a change of forename by his or her father. The applicant appealed without success. In parallel, in May 2004 she changed her original surname to the surname of her stepfather which was also the surname of her mother and half-brother.

Law - Article 8: The patronymic as a part of a personal name was traditionally derived from the name of the father of the person concerned. Ukrainian legislation recognised, however, that when individuals became mature enough to make their own decisions concerning their names they could keep or change the name given to them at birth. It was particularly noteworthy that a person could preserve his or her patronymic even when his or her father no longer held the forename from which it derived. The new Civil Code enacted on 1 January 2004 laid down that an individual could change the patronymic if his or her father had changed his forename. The domestic authorities had interpreted that provision as a clear indication that a change of name by the father was the only possible ground for changing a person’s patronymic. It was a matter of dispute between the parties whether the restriction of the applicant’s right was based on law or on an incorrect interpretation of the law. At the relevant time various provisions were in existence, which suggested that the issue of change of patronymic had not been formulated with sufficient clarity. Nevertheless it was undisputed that the right of the individual to keep his or her name was recognised in the Ukrainian legislation, as well as the right to change it. Indeed, the Ukrainian system of changing names appeared to be rather flexible and a person could change his or her name by following a special procedure with only minor restrictions which were applicable in very specific circumstances, mainly related to criminal-justice considerations. In this situation, the restrictions on changing the patronymic did not appear to have been properly and sufficiently reasoned by the domestic law. Furthermore, no justification for denying the applicant her right to decide this important aspect of her private and family life had been given by the domestic authorities and no such justification had otherwise been established. As the authorities had not balanced the relevant interests at stake they had not fulfilled their positive obligation of securing the applicant’s right to respect for her private life.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.

 

© 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