Information Note on the Court’s case-law 55
July 2003
Mustafa v. France - 63056/00
Judgment 17.6.2003 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Procedure for changing name in the French administrative courts: Article 6 applicable
Facts: In December 1992, the applicant lodged an application to change his patronymic. The proceedings before the administrative courts ended in January 2003.
Law: The Court dismisses the respondent Government’s objection that Article 6 § 1 is not applicable: although a change of patronymic is not unrestricted in France, Article 61 of the Civil Code provides that “anyone showing a legitimate interest” may apply to change his surname. Where the authorities refuse permission, the person concerned may bring proceedings before the administrative courts for abuse of power and obtain a judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision. The administration’s powers in that regard are not entirely discretionary: where they refuse permission, they must state the reasons why the person concerned has no “legitimate interest” within the meaning of Article 61 of the Civil Code and the courts have a certain power of review. The Court concludes that the “dispute” (“contestation”) concerned a “defensible right” in domestic law. This right is a “civil” right, since a person’s state forms part of his civil rights for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. The Court recalls that as a means of personal identification and of belonging to a family, a person’s surname concerns his private and family life; that is not affected by the fact that the State and society have an interest in regulating the use of the surname, since those public-law aspects can be reconciled with private life conceived as encompassing, to a certain extent, the individual’s right to form and develop relations with his fellows.
The Court rejects the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: the Government maintain that two judgments of the Paris Administrative Court of 1999 show that the excessive length of administrative proceedings may engage the responsibility of the State for gross negligence and that the applicant may therefore obtain compensation. However, the Court is of the view that these two decisions alone, which, moreover, were delivered by a court of first instance, do not suffice to prove that the remedy relied on by the respondent Government is effective and accessible.
The Court refers to the importance of what was at stake for the applicant and concludes that the length of the proceedings, ten years and more than one month, is excessive.
Conclusion: violation (unanimous).
Article 41 – The Court awards the applicant €6,000 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