FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SAHINER v. AUSTRIA
(Application no. 21669/21)
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Refusal to grant applicant’s request to change the forename “Özlem” given to her at birth to “Lemilia” which she was unofficially using and identified with • Wide margin of appreciation • Chose forename not “common” as required by the relevant domestic law • In circumstances no positive obligation created for the authorities to register a forename not complying with the State’s national naming law and practice • Fair balance between competing interest struck
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
3 June 2025
 
FINAL
 
03/09/2025
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sahiner v. Austria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Tim Eicke,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 21669/21) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Ms Özlem Sahiner (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2021;
the decision to give notice to the Austrian Government (“the Government”) of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns the Austrian authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant’s request to change her forename from “Özlem” to “Lemilia”. The applicant relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1996 and lives in Hall in Tyrol. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant was given the Turkish forename “Özlem”, which was registered upon her birth in Austria. Her father had insisted on that name, whereas her mother wanted to name her “Lemilia”. After the divorce of her parents, the applicant was raised by her mother and claims to have never met her father except for one difficult experience with him in her childhood. Since her birth, her mother has always called the applicant “Lemilia”. She also claims to be known as “Lemilia” to her friends and colleagues. The applicant, who did not wish to have any contact or association with her father, changed the surname she had received from her father to that of her mother (“Sahiner”). The applicant’s name change request
6. On 5 February 2019 the applicant lodged a request with the Innsbruck District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) to have her forename changed from “Özlem” to “Lemilia”. 7. On 7 February 2019, after a preliminary examination of the request, the District Administrative Authority informed the applicant that the forename “Lemilia” could not be found in the Austrian registrars’ databases, including the encyclopaedia and database of forenames and the list of all forenames registered since 1984 which contains approximately 36,000 female and 33,000 male forenames. An enquiry to the Institute of Linguistics of the University of Innsbruck confirmed that the name existed neither in the Italian language nor in the Spanish language, but was likely a combination of the forename “Emilia” and a definite article (“‘la’ or ‘l’”). The authority informed the applicant that since “Lemilia” was not a common (gebräuchlich) forename, as required under section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (Namensänderungsgesetz; see paragraph 17 below), it intended to reject the applicant’s request. The applicant was invited to make submissions before a decision was taken. 8. On 26 April 2019 the applicant submitted that in her view the forename “Lemilia” satisfied the requirements of the Name Change Act. She argued that the term “common” was not clearly defined in that Act and that, according to the explanatory notes to the draft law (see paragraph 18 in fine below), its purpose was merely to ensure that the gender of a person was recognisable through the forename. Not only was “Lemilia” clearly a female forename but it was also common as it could be found on various online databases and social media platforms. She submitted excerpts from her online search – in particular, social media profiles of individuals named “Lemilia”. The applicant further argued that she identified with the name “Lemilia”, that all her family and friends knew her by that name and that a refusal to allow her to change her name would infringe her right to respect for private and family life. On 30 April 2019 the applicant submitted a copy of a Brazilian driving licence issued to a person she had found on social media who had the forename “Lemilia”. 9. On 27 May 2019 the District Administrative Authority rejected the applicant’s request, referring to section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 17 below) on the grounds that “Lemilia” was not a common forename. It could not be found in the Austrian registrars’ databases, nor did it exist in the Italian or Spanish language (see paragraph 7 above). The District Administrative Authority stated that it was not necessary for the forename to be common in Austria and that the statistical frequency of a forename was not decisive; the requirement would also be satisfied by a foreign name or a rarely used one, provided that it possessed a certain degree of frequency (Häufigkeit), prominence (Bekanntheit) or commonness (Gebräuchlichkeit). The excerpts from the applicant’s online search for people with the name “Lemilia” and the copy of a Brazilian driving licence issued to a person named “Lemilia” (see paragraph 8 in fine above) were not considered pertinent. Naming laws in Latin American countries were much less restrictive than those applicable in Europe or Austria, allowing persons in that region to be named even after a number or descriptions such as “Madeinusa”. It was thus not surprising that persons with the name “Lemilia” could be found in Latin America. Appeal proceedings before the regional Administrative Court
10. On 25 June 2019 the applicant lodged a complaint against the District Administrative Authority’s decision (Bescheidbeschwerde). She argued that the District Administrative Authority had falsely interpreted the requirement of commonness to imply statistical frequency or prevalence of a name in Austria (see paragraph 9 above). She again referred to the explanatory notes to the draft law (see paragraph 18 below) to argue that the requirement of commonness (Gebräuchlichkeit) was aimed at preventing names that were ridiculous, offensive, not common for the identification of persons or not suitable for the identification of a person’s gender. The forename “Lemilia” was evidently female and common. The social media profiles she had submitted of people with the name “Lemilia” and the copy of a Brazilian driving license (see paragraph 8 in fine above) should have been sufficient to prove this. It was also undisputed that the name “Emilia” was common and the minor addition of one letter to that name should not render the name uncommon. The District Administrative Authority’s reasoning meant that it would never be possible to establish new names in Austria. The District Administrative Authority had also contradicted itself by denying that statistical frequency was decisive to satisfy the requirement of commonness but at the same time refusing the applicant’s name change request on account of not finding the forename “Lemilia” in Austria. The applicant also alleged a violation of her right to respect for private and family life. She identified with the name “Lemilia” and for a long time had believed that that was her real name. It caused significant inconvenience to the applicant to have to clarify to her long-term friends that her official name was not “Lemilia”. 11. On 4 December 2019 the Tyrol Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol – hereinafter “the Regional Administrative Court”), after holding an oral hearing, dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Administrative Authority’s conclusion that “Lemilia” was not a common forename (see paragraph 9 above). The Regional Administrative Court noted that the applicant did not identify with the forename “Özlem”, that she had always been called “Lemilia”, that she wanted nothing to do with her father, from whom her mother was divorced, and that, for all those reasons, she had already changed her surname to that of her mother and now intended to change her forename as well. While, in the view of the Regional Administrative Court, the Name Change Act (see paragraphs 15-18 below) indeed did not define in more detail the meaning of the term “common” and the statistical frequency of the use of a forename did not play a role in the assessment, the term “common” had to be read to mean “customary” (allgemein üblich). The evidence provided by the applicant was not sufficient to establish that “Lemilia” was customary. The excerpts from social media platforms did not prove anything, as on those platforms it was possible to register accounts under fake names. The copy of a single driving license issued to a person with the forename “Lemilia” could also not rebut the credible conclusion provided by the Institute of Linguistics that the forename did not exist (see paragraph 7 and 9 above). Furthermore, the fact that the forename “Lemilia” only carried one additional letter in comparison with the common forename “Emilia” did not make it common. The applicant’s claims that she did not identify with her official forename and that she had always been called “Lemilia” by her mother, friends and colleagues, while being understandable reasons for wanting to change her forename, did not alter the conclusion that the requested forename was not common. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court
12. On 20 January 2020 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint (Erkenntnisbeschwerde) against the decision of the Regional Administrative Court (see paragraph 11 above) with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) alleging that the decision, as well as the Name Change Act (see paragraph 15 et seq below) it was based on were unconstitutional. She argued that her patriarchal father had forced the name “Özlem” on her and her mother, that she did not know him apart from one difficult childhood experience, that she was known as “Lemilia” and that, against this background, she had decided to officially change her forename to the one she had always identified with. Her reasons to request the name change were serious and outweighed any public interests. The District Administrative Authority (see paragraph 9 above) and the Regional Administrative Court (see paragraph 11 above) had not struck a fair balance between her interest in the name change and any public interests pursued by the refusal of her request. The Regional Administrative Court’s interpretation of the requirement of commonness as meaning “customary” was excessive and not justified by a public interest. The applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention had thus been violated. She further complained of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention on account of the difference in treatment that she had received as compared with persons born abroad who were named “Lemilia” and would be permitted to keep that name in Austria or be registered with it upon naturalisation. The applicant asked for the constitutionality of section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 17 below) to be reviewed as the provision was too vague and in contravention of Article 8 of the Convention, given that any interference with the right to a name had to be based on a clearly defined law. 13. On 8 June 2020 the Constitutional Court (E 254/2020) declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint (see paragraph 12 above). It referred to its case-law (see paragraph 21 below) to the effect that it was legitimate for the legislature to require surnames to have a real point of reference in the societal development of names and not to be freely invented. It was therefore also compatible with Article 8 of the Convention for the legislature to require evidence of the pertinent use of a forename either in Austria or abroad in order for that forename to be regarded as common, and thus not to allow, in the light of the identity-forming significance of a name, the use of every linguistic enunciation (Enuntiation) that was suitable for individual identification and was neither offensive nor ridiculous as a forename. Against the background of that case-law, the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant’s claims did not have sufficient prospects of success. It referred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 14. On 30 September 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court (Ro 2020/01/0013) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (Revision), upholding the reasoning of the Regional Administrative Court. It examined the meaning of the term “common” and concluded, by reference to its case-law and that of the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 21-22 below), that it required a forename to be customary or widespread (üblich oder (weit)verbreitet) either in Austria or abroad and to have a real reference point in the social development of names and not be freely invented. The Regional Administrative Court had thus correctly found, on the basis of sufficient reasons, that the forename “Lemilia” was not common within the meaning of section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 11 above). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Domestic legislationThe Name Change Act

15. Section 1 of the Name Change Act (Namensänderungsgesetz; Federal Law Gazette no. 195/1988) provides that a request by a person to have his or her name changed based on one of the grounds listed in section 2 of the Act will be granted, unless there are grounds for refusal under section 3 of the Act. 16. Section 2(1) of the Name Change Act enumerates various grounds on which a surname may be changed. Section 2(1)(11) provides that if a person so wishes, he or she may also request a name change “for other reasons” (Wunschnamensänderung). Under section 2(2) of the Name Change Act, the grounds for a change of surname also apply to that of a forename, including the possibility of requesting a name change “for other reasons”. 17. However, a change of surname or forename requested under one of the grounds enumerated in section 2 may not be authorised if one of the grounds for refusal listed in section 3(1) of the Name Change Act applies, the relevant part of which provides:
Refusal of authorisation
“(1) The change of surname or forename may not be authorised if
1. the change of surname would enable the circumvention of legal provisions;
2. the requested surname is ridiculous, offensive or not common for the identification of persons in Austria;
...
6. the requested change of surname or forename is detrimental to the welfare of a person affected by it who is a minor or incapable of making decisions for himself or herself;
7. the requested forename is not common or does not correspond to the applicant’s gender as a first forename;
...”
18. The explanatory notes to the draft Name Change Act (Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, 467 BlgNR, XVII. GP, p. 9) explain that, in accordance with section 3 of the Name Change Act, a request for a change of surname or forename will be refused when important public or private interests speak against it. For instance, section 3(1)(2) prevents the choice of a surname that is ridiculous, offensive or not common for the identification of persons in Austria, such as meaningless combinations of letters (for example, “ABC”) or numbers (for example, “007”) or names that are commonly used for animals, plants or objects (for example, “Crocodile”, “Autumn Crocus” or “Aluminium”). The notes further explain that section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act is intended to prevent a forename not in compliance with what is now section 13(2) of the Civil Status Act (see paragraph 19 below) from being registered through a name change (Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, 467 BlgNR, XVII. GP, p. 10). Section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act focuses more on the commonness of a forename in Austria, as “forenames that are uncommon in Austria often create doubts about the gender of the person carrying the name”. The Civil Status Act
19. Section 13(2) of the Civil Status Act (Personenstandsgesetz; Federal Law Gazette I no. 16/2013) provides that a forename may not be registered for a child if it contradicts his or her gender, is not common as a forename or is detrimental to the best interests of the child. 20. The explanatory notes to the original draft law from 1981 (Erläuterungen zur Regierungsvorlage, 656 BlgNr., XV. GP, p. 26) explain that while names can in principle be freely chosen, some limits had to be introduced for the protection of public order. Thus, section 13(2) of the Civil Status Act should be read as excluding forenames that are nonsensical or offensive, that do not correspond to the child’s gender or that are not forenames (such as combinations of numbers or letters or names typically used as surnames). Domestic case-law
21. In a decision of 15 October 2016 (E 880/2016), the Constitutional Court dealt with a case involving the refusal of a change of surname on the grounds that it did not comply with section 3(1)(2) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 17 above). Referring to Article 8 of the Convention and the case‑law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court held that generally, it was legitimate for the legislature, in accordance with section 3(1)(2) of the Name Change Act, to require a surname to be common for the identification of persons in Austria, to have a real point of reference in the societal development of names in Austria (for instance, through a historical aspect or developments such as migration) and not to be freely invented. However, the Constitutional Court also emphasised that those conditions had to be interpreted in line with the Convention and, in particular, the identity‑forming significance of the name for a person. In the case before it, the Constitutional Court ruled that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted section 3(1)(2) of the Name Change Act to require that the requested surname exist in Austria at the time of the name change and had not taken into account the fact that the applicant’s ancestors had borne the name in the past and that he identified with it. 22. In a decision of 8 April 1987 (86/01/0284), the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a judgment in a case concerning the choice of a forename for a child. It held that section 13(2) of the Civil Status Act (see paragraph 19 above) had to be interpreted in a way that gave parents the freedom to choose forenames for their child that were common abroad. The statistical frequency of the use of a forename in Austria was thus not decisive in the examination of the commonness of a forename. In another decision, delivered on 22 June 1988 (87/01/0116), the Supreme Administrative Court found that while the provenance of a forename was not relevant, and both Austrian and foreign names were permitted, the law clearly required a forename to be common. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
23. The applicant complained that the refusal of her request to have her forename changed amounted to a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life .... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The parties’ submissionsThe applicant

24. The applicant alleged that the refusal of her request to have her forename changed from “Özlem” to “Lemilia” on the grounds that the forename “Lemilia” was not common within the meaning of section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 17 above) had constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life that had not been necessary in a democratic society. 25. The applicant argued that a balancing of interests should have concluded in her favour. Referring to the significance of the name for the identity of a person, she submitted that she had always been called “Lemilia” by her mother, friends and colleagues and that she only identified with that forename and not at all with “Özlem”, a name given by her father with whom she had no contact and from whom she wanted to distance herself. The forename change would prevent her from being found by her father and allow her to leave her past behind and further her inclusion in Austrian society. Throughout the domestic proceedings no public reasons had been advanced that could justify the refusal of her request. She contended that her individual situation had not been addressed and that her estrangement from her father and the emotional distress associated with her current name had not been taken into account. She challenged the Government’s contention (see paragraph 27 below) that the refusal of the name change had been in accordance with the law and served a legitimate aim. The law did not specify what “common” meant and the authorities had falsely interpreted it as meaning “widely used or generally accepted”. As for the aim referred to by the Government, namely the protection of public order and the proper identification of persons, the applicant submitted that the name “Lemilia” did not endanger public order and was suitable to identify a person. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s argument (see paragraph 29 below) that she could have chosen any other common name, as she only identified with “Lemilia” because it had identity-forming significance for her. 26. In addition, the applicant referred to the Court’s judgment in Johansson v. Finland (no. 10163/02, 6 September 2007), where the Court had decided in favour of the applicant, who had chosen the forename “Axl” for his child – which was not significantly different from the common Finnish forename “Axel”. She argued that the Court’s conclusion in that case – that no fair balance had been struck between the competing interests – was valid in the present case too, as “Lemilia” was also not much different from the accepted forename “Emilia”. Unlike in Guillot v. France (24 October 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V), there was further no need to protect the applicant from an eccentric or whimsical name. “Lemilia” might be a rare forename but was in any event normal, not wholly fabricated (as it existed in other jurisdictions) and sounded beautiful. The Government
27. The Government submitted that it could be left open whether the refusal of the applicant’s name change from “Özlem” to “Lemilia” constituted an interference with her rights under Article 8 of the Convention as, in any case and contrary to her submissions, the refusal had complied with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. In particular, it had been based on a law, namely section 3(1)(7) of the Name Change Act (see paragraph 17 above), which had been declared constitutional by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 13 and 21 above). Accordingly, a forename should have a real point of reference in the societal development of names and should not be invented. The Government argued, with reference to Stjerna v. Finland (25 November 1994, § 39, Series A no. 299-B), that the requirement in question served the legitimate purpose of ensuring accurate registration of the population and of safeguarding the means of personal identification. Only common names allowed the proper identification of a person, while invented names did not fulfil that regulatory function for lack of traceability. 28. The Government was of the view that both the District Administrative Authority and the Austrian courts had thoroughly examined the applicant’s request and had explained in detail that the forename requested by her was not common. In doing so, they had weighed the applicant’s private interests against legitimate public interests both in ensuring accurate registration of the population and in safeguarding the means of personal identification. The applicant had not been able to prove with convincing evidence that the requested forename was common. 29. The Government challenged the applicant’s argument (see paragraph 26 above) regarding the similarity of the names “Lemilia” and “Emilia”, as this did not make “Lemilia” common. The present case was different from Johansson (cited above) because that case concerned the refusal to register a different spelling of a common forename, whereas “Lemilia” in the present case was a “fantasy name”, which had never been given to a person in Austria before. The applicant could have chosen the name “Emilia”, or any other common name, to achieve her goal of distancing herself from her father and their shared past.

Outcome for Article 8: no_violation