Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe and Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe.
Date: 2016-06-02
28


Article 20 TFEU confers on any person holding the nationality of a Member State the status of citizen of the Union (see judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited). The appellant in the main proceedings, who holds the nationality of two Member States, benefits from that status.
29


The Court has stated several times that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
30


That status enables those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy, within the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for (see judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
31


The situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law include those which involve the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 21 TFEU (see judgments of 20 September 2001 in Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 33; of 11 July 2002 in D’Hoop, C‑224/98, EU:C:2002:432, paragraph 29; and of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 62).
32


Although, as EU law stands at present, the rules governing the way in which a person’s surname and forename are entered on certificates of civil status are matters coming within the competence of the Member States, the latter must nonetheless, when exercising that competence, comply with EU law and, in particular, with the Treaty provisions on the freedom of every citizen of the Union to move and reside in the territory of the Member States (see judgments of 2 October 2003 in Garcia Avello, C‑148/02, EU:C:2003:539, paragraph 25; of 14 October 2008 in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 16; and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraphs 38 and 39, and of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 63).
34


It is therefore necessary to examine, in the light of that provision alone, the refusal by the authorities of a Member State to recognise the name acquired by a national of that State in another Member State, of which he also holds the nationality, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings (see, by analogy, judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 65).
35


It must be noted, as a preliminary point, that a person’s forename and surname are a constituent element of his identity and of his private life, the protection of which is enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). Even though Article 7 of the Charter does not refer to it expressly, a person’s forename and surname, as a means of personal identification and a link to a family, none the less concern his private and family life (see, as regards Article 8 of the ECHR, judgments of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited, and of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 66).
36


National legislation which places certain of the nationals of the Member State concerned at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State is a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU on every citizen of the Union (see, inter alia, judgments of 14 October 2008 in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 21; of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 53; and of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 68).
37


It follows from the case-law of the Court that a refusal by the authorities of a Member State to recognise the name of a national of that State who exercised his right to move and reside freely in the territory of another Member State, as determined in that second Member State, is likely to hinder the exercise of the right, enshrined in Article 21 TFEU, to move and reside freely in the territories of the Member States. Confusion and inconvenience are liable to arise from the divergence between the two names used for the same person (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraphs 39, 41, 42, 66 and 71).
38


In the present case, the refusal by the German authorities to recognise the change of forenames and surname of a German national, obtained under the legislation of another Member State of which that national also holds the nationality, is likely to constitute such a restriction. However, according to the Court’s case-law, in order to constitute a restriction on the freedoms recognised by Article 21 TFEU, the refusal to amend the forenames and surname of a national of a Member State and to recognise the forenames and surname which he has acquired in another Member State must be liable to cause him ‘serious inconvenience’ at administrative, professional and private levels (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).
39


Thus, the Court has already held that, every time the surname used in a specific situation does not correspond to that on the document submitted as proof of a person’s identity, or the surname in two documents submitted together is not the same, such a difference in surnames is liable to give rise to doubts as to the person’s identity and the authenticity of the documents submitted, or the veracity of their content (judgment of 14 October 2008 in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 28).
40


The Court has also held, with regard to a person who is a national of a Member State which refuses to recognise the name acquired by that person as an effect of his adoption in another Member State, in which that person resides, that the real risk of being obliged because of the discrepancy in names to dispel doubts as to one’s identity is such as to hinder the exercise of the right which flows from Article 21 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 70).
43


In that regard, it must be borne in mind that many daily actions, both in the public and in the private domains, require a person to provide evidence of his or her own identity and also, in the case of a family, evidence of the nature of the links between different family members (judgment of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 73).
48


In accordance with settled case-law, an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons can be justified only where it is based on objective considerations and is proportionate to the legitimate objective of the national provisions (see judgments of 14 October 2008 in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 29, and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 81).
66


In accordance with established case-law, objective considerations relating to public policy are capable of justifying, in a Member State, a refusal to recognise the name of one of its nationals, as accorded in another Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 October 2008 in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 38, and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 85).
67


The Court has repeatedly held that the concept of public policy as justification for a derogation from a fundamental freedom must be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the EU institutions. It follows therefrom that public policy may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (see judgments of 14 October 2004 in Omega, C‑36/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited, and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 86).
68


The fact remains, however, that the specific circumstances which may justify recourse to the concept of public policy may vary from one Member State to another and from one era to another. In that regard, it is therefore necessary to accord the competent national authorities a certain discretion within the limits laid down in the Treaty (see judgments of 14 October 2004 in Omega, C‑36/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited, and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 87).
72


Measures which restrict a fundamental freedom may be justified on public policy grounds only if they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to secure and only in so far as those objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures (see judgments of 14 October 2004 in Omega, C‑36/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraph 36; of 10 July 2008 in Jipa, C‑33/07, EU:C:2008:396, paragraph 29; and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 90).
73


The Court has already explained in that regard that it is not indispensable for the restrictive measure issued by the authorities of a Member State to correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest in question is to be protected and that, on the contrary, the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions adopted are not excluded merely because one Member State has chosen a system of protection different from that adopted by another State (see judgments of 14 October 2004 in Omega, C‑36/02, EU:C:2004:614, paragraphs 37 and 38, and of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 91). It must also be noted that, in accordance with Article 4(2) TEU, the European Union is to respect the national identities of its Member States, which include the status of the State as a Republic (judgment of 22 December 2010 in Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 92).