Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)187[1]
Daroczy against Hungary
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 44378/05, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)872E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)872E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
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] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy