Communicated on 28 September 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 63821/10
Nuran KILINÇARSLAN
against Turkey
lodged on 17 September 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nuran Kılınçarslan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara. She is represented before the Court by Mr F. Huvaj, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 January 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction in order to change her surname “Kılınçarslan” to “Çetao”, explaining that she had Circassian (Adyghe) roots and that her family was known as Çetao.
On 20 February 2007 the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that “Çetao” was not a Turkish name and according to Article 3 of the Turkish Code on Surnames (Law no. 2525) and Section 7 of the Regulation on Surnames, foreign names cannot be used as a surname. In its decision the court further referred to Section 5 of the Regulation on Surnames, which requires newly adopted surnames to be only in Turkish language.
The applicant appealed. On 17 May 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
On 17 December 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s rectification request. This decision was deposited with the registry of the first instance court on 30 December 2009.
According to the applicant’s submission, her lawyer obtained a copy of the said decision on 26 July 2010 when he went to the court house to learn about the outcome of the case.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Turkish Code on Surnames (Law no. 2525)
Article 3
“Names of foreign ethnic and national origin cannot be used as surnames.”
The Regulation on Surnames:
Section 5
“Newly adopted surnames should be in the Turkish language.”
Section 7
“Names of foreign ethnic and national origin cannot be used as surnames.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained of the domestic authorities’ refusal to allow her to change her surname. The applicant further complained that this refusal resulted in discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin and was therefore incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant or her lawyer notified of the final decision of the Court of Cassation (dated 17 December 2009) prior to 26 July 2010?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the refusal by the domestic courts to allow the applicant to change her surnames? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
3. Did the decision of the domestic courts concerning the refusal of the request to change surnames violate the applicant’s rights under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy