Search
document

Document text Analytics

STJERNA v. FINLANDPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 8, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

STJERNA v. FINLANDPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 8, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. LIDDY

The refusal of a name change in this case raises the question of

whether the applicant's right to respect for his private life has been

observed. I have had the benefit of reading Mr. Pellonpää's dissenting

opinion and agree with him that, whether analysed in terms of

"interference" or "lack of respect", the refusal of the name change

must be lawful, serve a legitimate purpose and be necessary in a

democratic society. I also agree with him that the refusal took place

in accordance with the law and that, for the reasons he gives, its aim

was not to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

However, I can accept that the aim of a machinery set up by

statute for controlling name changes is the prevention of disorder, so

that, broadly speaking, the grant or refusal of permission for a name

change in an individual case can be said to be aimed at the prevention

of disorder.

The question remains whether it was necessary in a democratic

society to refuse a name change or, put otherwise, whether Finland

upset the fair balance between the competing interests of the

individual and those of the community as a whole, which must be struck

under Article 8.

It seems to me clear that the applicant had a strong interest in

changing his name. For some people with unusual names it must be a

burden to be obliged constantly to repeat the pronunciation of the name

and spell it distinctly, and risk being addressed wrongly no matter

have many precautions have been taken. Other people with unusual names

may be quite content with their situation, but the applicant in the

present case clearly was not, and suffered the inconvenience of delays

in his mail.

I do not see how the interests of the community in the prevention

of disorder could have outweighed the applicant's interests. There

existed a machinery for changing names and for noting the name change

on the register card of the individual (paras. 33-34 of the Report).

In these circumstances I conclude that a fair balance was not

struck and that the applicant's right to respect for his private life

was not observed in the present case.

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

11 March 1991 Introduction of the application

25 April 1991 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

2 December 1991 Commission's decision to invite the

Government to submit observations on the

admissibility and merits of the

application

28 February 1992 Government's observations

13 April 1992 Applicant's observations in reply

29 June 1992 Commission's decision to declare the

application admissible

Examination of the merits

2 July 1992 Decision on admissibility transmitted to

the parties

5 December 1992 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

3 April 1993 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

2 July 1993 Commission's deliberations on the merits

and final vote

8 July 1993 Adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant