Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)187[1]
Daroczy contre Hongrie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 44378/05, arrêt du 01/07/2008, définitif le 01/10/2008)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)872E)[2] ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)872E) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées ;
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Revised Action Report of 15 June 2012
Appl. No. 44378/05
Daróczy, judgement of 1/07/2008
Introductory case summary
The applicant was obliged to change her married name (from "Tiborné Daróczy" to "Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy"), which she had been using since her marriage in 1950 and for which the state authorities had issued her with several offcial documents, including her identity card. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that the restriction imposed on the applicant had been unacceptably rigid and completely disregarded her interests, in that she had been forced to alter a name which she had used for more than 50 years and which, beyond its relevance in self-identification and self-determination, also gave her a strong personal link to her late husband. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.
I. Individual measures
- Just satisfaction rewarded to the applicants was paid on 4 November 2008 in sum of 1,363,902 HUF. (Ms Daróczy 3,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses.)
- The applicant received the official documents about the requested change of her name on 15 June 2009 and is thus now allowed to bear her old married name again.
No further individual measures are necessary in the execution process.
II. General measures
Section 27/B of the Act no. 17 of 1982 on maternal register, marriage procedure and names was amended by the Act no. 21 of 2009 (Section 1 para (3), entered into force on 1 June 2009). This change of legislation made it possible to file a petition in order to change the name of the applicant. According to the legal provision:
„The married name of a person bearing the name of his or her spouse may be changed upon request to that effect where
a) the marriage no longer exists, and
b) by an official certificate suitable for identification of persons or by a basic document of the registry of citizens’ personal data and addresses it can be verified that the ex-spouse bore his or her name in the requested form.”
The decision was translated and the Hungarian version was published on the website of the Government: ().
No further general measures were considered necessary, because similar problems can be avoided due to the change in the Act.
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case, and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Budapest, 14 June 2012
Zoltán Tallódi
Co-Agent of the Government of Hungary
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] En anglais uniquement
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy