Information Note on the Court’s case-law
October 1996
Guillot v. France - 22500/93
Judgment 24.10.1996
Article 8
Refusal of registrar of births, deaths and marriages and subsequently of courts to allow parents to name their daughter "Fleur de Marie": no violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
A.Applicability
As a means of identifying persons within their families and the community, forenames concern private and family life.
Choice of child's forename by parents a personal, emotional matter and therefore comes within their private sphere.
Conclusion: Article 8 applicable (unanimously).
B.Compliance
Child regularly used forename in issue without hindrance and the courts had allowed application made in alternative by applicants for registration of forename "Fleur-Marie".
Consequently, inconvenience complained of by applicants was insufficient to raise issue of failure to respect their private and family life under Article 8 § 1.
Conclusion: no violation (seven votes to two).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy