DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES MACDONALD AND DE MEYER

(Translation)

We regret that we are unable to agree with the present judgment. There has certainly been an interference with the exercise by the applicants of their right to respect for their private and family life, which without any doubt includes the right to choose a forename. The freedom to choose was restricted by the refusal to enter in the register of births, deaths and marriages the forename given to the child by her parents. We have no difficulty in accepting that this interference, based on the Law of 11 Germinal Year XI in force at the material time, was lawful and that it pursued a legitimate aim, the protection of the child ' s interests. However, we consider that it has not been shown that it was "necessary in a democratic society". Moreover, we do not see how a forename such as "Fleur de Marie" could harm the person so named

(1). It would probably be less harmful than the saints ' names referred to in the dissenting opinion of Mr Geus or names such as " Cléopâtre ", " Hérodiade ", " Messaline ", "Pilate", "Caligula" or " Néron " made famous in various ways by "known figures of ancient history" and thus perfectly acceptable under the Law referred to above [4] . In addition, we note that under French law anyone who is not satisfied with his forename may at any time request that it be changed if he is able to show a "legitimate interest" [5] .

[1] The case is numbered 52/1995/558/644. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[3] For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

[4] See also on this subject the dissenting opinion

[5] The Government's representative himself drew attention to this at the hearing on 23 April 1996.