Communicated on 9 May 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 51756/11 Habiybe AYDIN against Turkey lodged on 4 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Habiybe Aydın, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in İzmir.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant, a pharmacist, got married in 1986. Until her divorce in 2010, she used both her maiden name and her husband ’ s name pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Code. Subsequently, in the context of the divorce proceedings, by a decision dated 20 July 2010, the first instance court had regard to an agreement between the applicant and her husband and allowed the applicant to continue using her husband ’ s name.

On an unspecified date, the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths refused to allow the applicant to bear two surnames. Accordingly, the applicant initiated proceedings before the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. On the basis of Article 173 of the Civil Code, the court dismissed the case, holding that the law only allowed married women to bear two surnames and divorcees could either use their maiden name or their former husband ’ s name, if the parties had an agreement to that effect.

The applicant appealed. On 7 April 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 173 of the Civil Code

“Upon divorce a women may be allowed to retain her former husband ’ s surname if she proves to the judge that this is in her best interest and will not harm the man concerned.”

Article 187 of the Civil Code

“Married women shall bear their husband ’ s name. However, they can make a written declaration to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths on signing the marriage certificate, or at the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths after the marriage, if they wish to keep their maiden name in front of their surname ...”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the domestic authorities ’ refusal to allow her to bear both her maiden name and her former husband ’ s name after her divorce, despite the fact that by a decision dated 20 July 2010 the domestic court had given her the right to use her former husband ’ s name, constitutes a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant further states that the fact that Turkish law allows married women to bear both surnames, but not the divorcees, amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the refusal of the authorities to allow the applicant, a divorcee, to adopt both her maiden and her former husband ’ s name as her family name in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention?