PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 38249/09) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Ms Betül Tanbay Tüten (“the applicant”), on 3 July 2009.

The applicant was represented by Ms A. Becerik, lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the refusal by the domestic courts to allow her to bear only her maiden name unjustifiably interfered with her right to protection of her private life under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

On 22 October 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.

On 30 October 1992 the applicant, who is a university professor, got married and took her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her academic and professional life, she continued using it. However, she could not use it in official documents.

Following the amendment made to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 that entitled married women the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname, the applicant started to avail herself of this possibility in official documents.

Following the adoption of new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.

On 5 December 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name, “Tanbay”.

On 31 January 2008 the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not entitled to use their maiden name alone.

The applicant appealed. On 14 July 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.

On 4 December 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the Court of Cassation on the ground that it failed to meet the requirements foreseen in the law and the applicant was fined the equivalent of EUR 80 (euros) as a result. The latter decision was delivered to the applicant on 9 January 2009.