Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – National conflict of law rules – Determination of surname

(Art. 12 EC)

2. Citizens of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – National conflict of law rules – Determination of surname

(Art. 18 EC)

Summary

1. Where a child, who is a national of one Member State and is lawfully resident in the territory of a second Member State, and his parents have only the nationality of the first Member State and, in respect of the conferring of a surname, the conflicts rule of the first Member State refers to the domestic substantive law on surnames, the determination of that child’s surname in that Member State in accordance with its legislation cannot constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 12 EC.

(see paras 16-18, 20)

2. Article 18 EC precludes the authorities of a Member State, in applying national law which uses nationality as the sole connecting factor for the determination of surnames, from refusing to recognise a child’s surname, as determined and registered in a second Member State in which the child – who, like his parents, has only the nationality of the first Member State – was born and has been resident since birth. Having to use a surname, in the Member State of which the person concerned is a national, that is different from that conferred and registered in the Member State of birth and residence is liable to hamper the exercise of the right, established in Article 18 EC, to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. In that regard, a discrepancy in surnames is liable to cause serious inconvenience for the person concerned, inter alia, in both the public and the private spheres on account of the fact that, as he has only one nationality, he will be issued with a passport by the State of which he is a national and which alone has the competence to do so, in a name that is different from the name he was given in the State of birth and residence. In that regard, the child concerned risks having to dispel doubts concerning his identity and suspicions of misrepresentation caused by the difference between the two surnames every time he has to prove his identity in the Member State of residence. Furthermore, in relation to attestations, certificates and diplomas or any other document establishing a right, any difference in surnames is likely to give rise to doubts as to the authenticity of the documents submitted, or the veracity of their content.

In view of the fact that the person concerned will bear a different name every time he crosses the border between the two Member States concerned, the connecting factor of nationality, which seeks to ensure that a person’s surname may be determined with continuity and stability, will result in an outcome contrary to that sought, in such a way that it cannot justify that refusal. The objective of preserving relationships between members of an extended family, however legitimate that objective may be in itself, also does not warrant having such importance attached to it as to justify such a refusal. Furthermore, the considerations of administrative convenience which led the Member State whose nationality the person concerned possesses to prohibit double-barrelled surnames cannot suffice to justify such an obstacle to freedom of movement, particularly because the prohibition in question does not appear to be absolute in view of the legislation of the Member State concerned.

(see paras 22-23, 25-28, 31-32, 36-37, operative part)