The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section Registrar. Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Asuman Sönmez (Bayrak), is a Turkish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr M.G. Ahi, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was born in...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 51166/06 Asuman SÖNMEZ (BAYRAK) against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section Registrar. Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Asuman Sönmez (Bayrak), is a Turkish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr M.G. Ahi, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.
2 SÖNMEZ (BAYRAK) v. TURKEY DECISION Following her marriage to Abdurrahman Sönmez on 22 June 1992, the applicant, whose surname was “Bayrak” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her professional life, she continued using it. However, she could not use it in any official documents. An amendment to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 meant that married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that option because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her request, which was to use her maiden name on its own. Following the enactment of the new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153. On 30 June 2005 the applicant brought proceedings before the Şişli Court of First Instance seeking permission to use only her maiden name, “Bayrak”. On 30 November 2005 the Şişli Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that, pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone. The applicant appealed. On 2 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the Court of Cassation on 7 July 2006. After the communication of the case to the Government, the applicant informed the Court in her observations dated 7 July 2011 that she had divorced on 13 December 2006. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the national authorities’ refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage, despite the fact that she had submitted the Court’s judgment on the same topic (Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, 16 November 2004) before the domestic courts, amounted to a breach of Ar...