Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100
August-September 2007
Johansson v. Finland - 10163/02
Judgment 6.9.2007 [Section IV]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Refusal to register the forename “Axl” even though other requests to take that name had been granted: violation
Facts: The applicants, Finnish nationals, decided to give the name “Axl Mick” to their son born in 1999. The local population registration authority refused to register this forename as this form of spelling did not comply with Finnish name practice. The applicants’ appeal was rejected. An administrative court found that according to the Names Act, a name which was incompatible with domestic name practice could nonetheless be accepted if a person, on the basis of nationality, family relations or some other special circumstance, had a connection with a foreign State and the proposed forename accorded with the name practice of that State, or for other valid reasons. The court concluded that the arguments presented by the applicants were insufficient to allow the forename “Axl” to be registered. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court.
Law: The Court accepted that the protection of the child from an unsuitable name, such as ridiculous or whimsical names, and the preservation of a national name practice were in the public interest. It observed that the domestic authorities have a broad discretion in applying the Names Act in each particular case. The name “Axl” had been used within the family circle since the applicants’ son’s birth in 1999 without any difficulty and could not be seen to differ vastly from names which were commonly used in Finland, such as “Alf” and “Ulf”. The name was not ridiculous or whimsical, nor was it likely to prejudice the child, and it appeared that it had not done so. It was also pronounceable in the Finnish language and used in some other countries. Had a vowel not been elided, it would automatically have been officially registered as a forename. The name could not therefore be deemed unsuitable for a child.
The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the name “Axl” had not been “new”, since three persons named “Axl” had been officially registered by the time the applicants’ son had been born. Subsequently, at least two more children have been given this name and four of the five children were Finnish nationals. It was therefore apparent that this name had already gained acceptance in Finland, and it had not been contended that this has had any negative consequences for the preservation of the cultural and linguistic identity of Finland. Given the above considerations, in particular the fact that the name “Axl” had been accepted for official registration in other situations, it was difficult for the Court to accept the national authorities’ grounds for not registering the same name for the applicants’ child. As the public interest considerations relied on by the Government could not be said to have outweighed the interests claimed by the applicants under Article 8 in having their son officially registered under a forename of their choosing, a fair balance had not been struck.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 2,000 for 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy