Case C‑438/14

Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

v

Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe

and

Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles — Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality — Name comprising tokens of nobility — Residence in the first Member State — Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status — Justification — Public policy — Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 2 June 2016

Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — National law abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles — Citizen of a Member State who also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired a name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility — Obligation on the authorities of the first Member State to recognise that name — Absence — Justified on public policy grounds — Verification by the national court

(Art. 21 TFEU)

Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are not bound to recognise the name of a citizen of that Member State when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the national court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.

In particular, it is for the national court to assess whether the competent civil status authorities of the first Member State, by refusing to recognise a name acquired in another Member State on the ground that achievement of the objective of safeguarding the principle of equality before the law of all citizens of the first Member State presupposes that it is prohibited for nationals of that State to acquire and use, in certain circumstances, titles or tokens of nobility likely to give the impression that the bearer of the name is the holder of such a rank, have not gone beyond what is necessary to ensure achievement of the fundamental constitutional objective which they pursue.

In that regard, in weighing up the right to freedom of movement conferred on citizens of the Union under Article 21 TFEU and the legitimate interests pursued by the restrictions placed by the national legislature on the use of titles of nobility and by its prohibition of the recreation of the appearance of noble origins, various factors must be taken into consideration. Although those factors cannot serve as justification as such, they must be taken into account when assessing proportionality.

Thus, firstly, the fact must be taken into account that the applicant exercised that right and holds double the nationality of the first and second Member STates, that the elements of the name acquired in the second Member State which, according to the authorities of the first Member State, undermine public policy, do not formally constitute titles of nobility either in the first or second Member State and that the court of the first Member State which ordered the competent authorities to make the entry of the name, which is made up of tokens of nobility, of the daughter of the applicant in the main proceedings, as registered by the authorities of the second Member State, did not take the view that that entry was contrary to public policy. Secondly, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that the change of name under consideration rests on a purely personal choice by the applicant in the main proceedings, that the difference in name which follows therefrom cannot be attributed either to the circumstances of his birth, to adoption, or to acquisition of the nationality of the second Member State and that the name chosen in the second Member State includes elements which, without formally constituting titles of nobility in the first or second Member State, give the impression of noble origins.

In any event, although the objective reason based on public policy and the principle that all citizens of the first Member State are equal before the law is capable, if it is accepted, of justifying the refusal to recognise the change of surname of the person concerned, it cannot justify the refusal to recognise his change of forenames.

(see paras 79-84, operative part)