Administrative Court Freiburg (Breisgau), 25.03.2013, Ref.: 6 K 578/11
Introduction of the case and request for name change
The plaintiff, a Brazilian national who obtained German citizenship in 2008, applied to change his surname from "F... da S..." to "da S..." in accordance with the German Name Change Act (NamÄndG). The plaintiff argued that the length and complexity of his name, combined with the lack of familiarity of his first name "T..." in Germany, led to confusion and considerable problems in everyday life. He stated that these difficulties led to misunderstandings with authorities, institutions and in his private life and put a great deal of psychological strain on him. One of the main reasons for the change was that electronic forms often did not offer enough space for his full name.
Rejection of the application by the defendant and justification
The competent registry office rejected the application for a name change on the grounds that there was no "good cause" within the meaning of Section 3 (1) NamÄndG. The authority argued that the applicant had been living with his previous name since coming to Germany in 1997 and had not demonstrated any serious impairments. The authority also pointed out that the name change would violate the principles of German naming law, in particular Section 1355 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which defines the rules on married names. The authority argued that the plaintiff was attempting to circumvent the civil law regulations. The plaintiff would have had the option of adopting his wife's surname when he got married in order to avoid potential difficulties with his own name.
Plaintiff's objection and detailed explanation of his charges
The plaintiff lodged an objection against the decision of the registry office. He argued that the name change was not about choosing a joint married name, but about shortening his own name. Furthermore, "da S..." was not an inadmissible double name, but a single name, as the "da" was merely a dependent element of the surname. In his objection, the plaintiff cited further examples that demonstrated his difficulties with the use of his name in everyday life, including repeated misspellings of his name in documents and insurance cards as well as problems with flight bookings due to the length of his name. These circumstances had led to considerable delays and complications, particularly when travelling and dealing with authorities.
The applicant also submitted a medical certificate confirming depressive symptoms due to the ongoing difficulties with his name. Despite the evidence and documents submitted, the regional council rejected the objection in February 2011, as the authority saw no important reason for a name change. It referred to the provisions of the German Civil Code and emphasised that other people with long or foreign names also had similar problems.
Decision of the court in favour of the plaintiff
The Administrative Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and overturned the defendant's decisions. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a name change in accordance with Sections 1 and 3 (1) NamÄndG, as there was good cause. It stated that the plaintiff's difficulties in dealing with authorities and institutions, the frequent confusion of first names and surnames and the practical problems in using electronic forms constituted considerable burdens. These burdens were not only to be assessed as a subjective feeling of the plaintiff, but also corresponded to the general public perception.
The court clarified that the provisions of the German Civil Code on married names were not affected in this case, as the plaintiff and his wife had not chosen a joint married name. There was therefore no circumvention of the provisions of Section 1355 BGB. The plaintiff had merely applied to change his own name and was not seeking a double name within the meaning of German naming law. In addition, the court pointed out that the examples provided by the plaintiff, such as the problems with flight bookings and the repeated confusion of his name, sufficiently demonstrated that the use of his name led to considerable inconvenience for him in everyday life.
Conclusion and significance of the decision
The judgement makes it clear that the right to change one's name under public law serves to eliminate individual inconveniences associated with the use of a name. In this case, the private interests of the plaintiff in changing his name were considered more serious than the public interest in retaining his previous name. The court's decision shows that the psychological and practical handling of a name in the wearer's everyday situations must also be taken into account. Finally, it was emphasised that the stress caused to the plaintiff by the frequent confusion and the inadequate placement of his name in forms as well as the psychological effects were sufficiently serious to justify a name change.
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent clients nationwide in immigration law.