Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189
October 2015
Macalin Moxamed Sed Dahir v. Switzerland (dec.) - 12209/10
Decision 15.9.2015 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Refusal to permit change of name with pejorative connotations if mispronounced: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant, of Somali origin, had been living in Switzerland since 1997. She got married in 2003. In 2005 she requested permission to add her maiden name to her husband’s surname and her request was granted. However, when the applicant’s maiden name is pronounced according to the rules of “Western” pronunciation, it takes on a disparaging or even humiliating meaning in Somali: “macalin” meaning “rotten skin” and “moxamed” meaning “toilets”. In 2008 the applicant asked for the spelling of her name to be changed so that it would be pronounced properly. The national authorities refused on account of the importance in Switzerland of the uniformity of surnames and the fact that the erroneous pronunciation did not produce a disparaging meaning in any of the Swiss national languages.
Law
Article 8: It was in the public interest to guarantee the stability of a person’s surname to ensure legal certainty in social relations. Names played a decisive role for the identification of individuals. The applicant had not sought to replace the old spelling of her name by another but had wished to use either spelling depending on the circumstances. Such a situation would clearly run counter to the principle of uniformity in the recording of surnames. To avoid that problem the Swiss authorities had informed the applicant that she would need to have the spelling of her surname changed by the Somali authorities. However, the applicant had not shown that she had taken such steps, but had merely provided an old official Somali document acknowledging that the requested spelling of her name had equal value. Moreover, the situation complained of by the applicant arose only when her name was pronounced according to “Western” rules of pronunciation in the presence of a Somali speaker. In addition, her request had been given an in-depth examination, by both the administrative authorities and the various courts, leading to well-reasoned judgments.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 14 taken together with Article 8
(a) Difference in treatment on grounds of language – It was of some importance, in assessing the possible breach of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, that the language in which the offensive meaning was heard was Somali. Her situation was not therefore comparable to that of persons whose names took on a ridiculous or humiliating meaning in the widely spoken national languages.
(b) Difference in treatment vis-à-vis certain migrants whose change of name was authorised – The migrants referred to by the applicant had been authorised to change their names because they could not be pronounced by Swiss people. The applicant, by contrast, had not argued that her name was impossible to pronounce for people not familiar with Somali. She was therefore not in a comparable situation to that of those other migrants.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
© 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