Brussels, 17/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - A member state may refuse to change surnames and forenames on certificates of civil status, as long as refusal is not likely to cause serious inconvenience for those concerned.
This, in essence, is what the EU Court of Justice states in its ruling of 12 May in Case C-391/09. The Court's decision was in response to a question raised by the First District Court of the City of Vilnius, Lithuania, which asked whether legislation of a member state that makes it an obligation to enter forenames and surnames on certificates of civil status only in the characters of the official national language runs counter to the directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of race or ethnic origin (Directive 2000/43/EC), or runs counter to the provisions of the Treaty on free movement (Article 18 of the EC Treaty). In the affair in question, a Lithuanian-Polish couple had, in Lithuania, been refused the possibility of changing the way their names were written on official certificates to comply with the spelling rules of the original national characters in which their names were written (Lithuanian and Polish characters).
In response to the argument raised by the claimants whereby identity cards and other official documents are needed in order to have the possibility to use and to provide goods and services covered by the directive, which means that the spelling and characters of the names are of significance, the Court observes that the directive covers vast areas of social life. However, this does not mean that the regulation under attack falls within the scope of the directive or, in particular, within the notion of “service” within the meaning of the directive.
As far as the provisions of the treaty on Union citizenship are concerned, the Court points out that, in the current state of EU law, rules governing the entry of a person's forename and surname in certificates of civil status fall within the scope of member state competence. Nonetheless, member states must abide by EU law and, in particular, the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of persons. Furthermore, the forename and surname of a person are a constituent element of that person's identity and of his/her private life, and, as such, are protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court states.
Nonetheless, in relation to the refusal to give the claimant the possibility to change the forename and maiden name on birth and marriage certificates, the Court indicates that, the absence of such a right is not liable to deter a citizen of the Union from exercising the rights of movement recognised by the EU Treaty and, to that extent, does not constitute a restriction.
Regarding the refusal to grant the claimant the possibility to change the addition to the maiden name of the Polish name of the husband while respecting the Polish spelling, the Court indicates that this can be a restriction of the freedoms recognised in the Treaty, but only if it causes “serious inconvenience” of an administrative, professional and private kind to the persons concerned. It is for the national court to decide whether the refusal to amend the joint surname of the couple is liable to cause such inconveniences to those concerned. If that is the case, then it will also be for the national court to decide whether such a refusal reflects a fair balance between the interests at issue - i.e. the right to a private and family life of those concerned, on one hand, and protection of the official language and tradition of the state in question, on the other.
Finally, with regard to the request made by the Polish spouse for his forenames to be entered on the Lithuanian marriage certificate in a form which complies with the rules governing Polish spelling, the Court observes that, here too, a refusal to change an official document (in this case the marriage certificate) in order to take the diacritical marks into account, does not constitute restriction of the freedoms that the Treaty confers on every citizen of the Union. (F.G./transl.jl)