SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51166/06
Asuman SÖNMEZ (BAYRAK)
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Asuman Sönmez (Bayrak), is a Turkish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr M.G. Ahi, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.
Following her marriage to Abdurrahman Sönmez on 22 June 1992, the applicant, whose surname was “Bayrak” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her professional life, she continued using it. However, she could not use it in any official documents.
An amendment to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 meant that married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that option because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her request, which was to use her maiden name on its own.
Following the enactment of the new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.
On 30 June 2005 the applicant brought proceedings before the Şişli Court of First Instance seeking permission to use only her maiden name, “Bayrak”.
On 30 November 2005 the Şişli Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that, pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone.
The applicant appealed. On 2 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the Court of Cassation on 7 July 2006.
After the communication of the case to the Government, the applicant informed the Court in her observations dated 7 July 2011 that she had divorced on 13 December 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the national authorities’ refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage, despite the fact that she had submitted the Court’s judgment on the same topic (Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, 16 November 2004) before the domestic courts, amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. She further claims that the fact that Turkish law allows married men to bear their own surname after marriage and not married women constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex and is incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
In the instant case, the Court observes that the applicant’s complaint concerns her inability, due to domestic law, to use only her maiden name after the marriage. However, in the meantime, it appears that the applicant divorced on 13 December 2006 - a fact which she failed to mention until her observations dated 7 July 2011 notwithstanding the terms of Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court according to which applicants are required to keep the Court informed of developments relevant to their application. Having regard to the applicant’s divorce on 13 December 2006, the Court finds that the matter complained of no longer concerned a live issue at the date of the introduction of the application (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47738/99, 22 May 2007).
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Atilla NalbantPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy