No violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 6-1

Mr PERSON , who is an NORP national , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , where he practises as a doctor .

The applicant and his girlfriend , GPE , had a daughter in DATE . Relations between the mother and father had rapidly deteriorated after their daughter was born and the relevant ORG had already had to intervene in the past .

Custody of the applicant ’s daughter was initially awarded to the mother , from whom the applicant had separated in the meantime .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for custody of his daughter to be formally awarded to him , since his ex - girlfriend had already given him custody de facto . She had signed a statement on DATE acknowledging the applicant ’s right to custody of the child .

NORP ORG , presided over by Judge A.M.B. , ordered an investigation and on DATE decided to place the child in a children ’s home . The court applied , inter alia , LAW . At the same time it limited the mother ’s access to once DATE and the father ’s to once DATE .

On TIME DATE social workers collected the child from school , having informed her teachers , and took her to a home .

NORP Immediately afterwards the applicant asked for his daughter to be examined by a neuropsychiatrist , but his request was refused for reasons which are unknown . According to the applicant , his daughter had been ill - treated in the children ’s home .

On DATE ORG appointed of its own motion CARDINAL experts , CARDINAL , PERSON , a psychologist and the other , ORG , a child neuropsychiatrist , whose names had already appeared in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears from a certificate issued by ORG that PERSON had also been a street trader in second - hand clothes and other items since DATE . Both experts were instructed to establish the state of relations between , firstly , the parents themselves and , secondly , the parents and their daughter , with a view to determining , among other things , which parent should be awarded custody of the child . To that end the court gave the experts the following directions , inter alia :

“ The experts are instructed to ascertain , once they have carried out all necessary investigations , examined the documents in the proceedings , met the parents , the maternal grandmother and the child … , the GPE personality type and the relationship between them , including how the situation is likely to develop in the future ; … ”

The CARDINAL experts agreed to each meet CARDINAL of the parents .

The applicant first appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE , but his appeal was dismissed by ORG ) on DATE . ORG upheld ORG decision on the ground that the child needed to be placed in a calmer environment so that the psychological difficulties she was experiencing as a result of the conflict between her parents could be studied . ORG also stated that CARDINAL privately appointed experts should be allowed to observe the court - appointed experts’ work .

The experts commissioned by the applicant were never consulted in the proceedings conducted by the court ’s experts and were unable to be present at the interview with the child . CARDINAL of them did , however , take part in a meeting with the court ’s experts to assess the material they had gathered during their assignment .

The court - appointed experts’ report was filed on DATE . It concluded , among other things , that neither parent seemed fit to give the child adequate emotional support or to have a balanced relationship with her . The experts also highlighted the fact that it had been impossible to assess the applicant ’s personality fully since he had failed to take part in all the diagnostic psychological tests .

On DATE one of the privately commissioned experts filed his report with ORG registry . The report criticised the conclusions of the court - appointed experts’ report , particularly the finding that the applicant cared little for the welfare of his daughter or her mother . A second privately commissioned expert report expressed the same view .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the court complaining that CARDINAL of its experts had never met him but had nonetheless signed the report containing assessments relating directly to his personality , and that the privately commissioned experts had not been invited to attend the interview with the child by the court - appointed experts . He submitted that the best solution would be for custody of the child to be awarded to him .

On DATE ORG , presided over by PERSON , confirmed the decision to place the child in a children ’s home and ordered the social services to arrange a series of meetings between the child and her mother with a view to returning custody to the mother . The applicant , on the other hand , was authorised to visit his daughter only once a month for TIME and only inside the home .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter was injured in a road accident . The applicant was informed of this on DATE and went to visit his daughter DATE . Noting that she had some fairly serious injuries and being of the view that the local hospital was not equipped to carry out the necessary tests , he applied to the local magistrate ( pretore ) on DATE to authorise him to take his daughter himself to ORG , which was better equipped . The magistrate considered the situation to be urgent and authorised the applicant to take his daughter to ORG accompanied by a member of staff from the home . However , on DATE the President of ORG decided that the father had no authority to intervene . He instructed the children ’s home to submit the child to such tests as the home judged appropriate , in consultation with the mother . The President of the court reiterated that he had made a decision authorising the applicant to see his daughter for TIME a month and that the magistrate was clearly unaware of that decision .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . He submitted , inter alia , that CARDINAL of the court experts had met him despite the court ’s instruction to them to prepare the expert report jointly . Furthermore , the privately commissioned expert had not been informed by the court - appointed experts of the date of their interview with the child , nor had he taken part in the court ’s deliberations on DATE .

In the meantime the applicant had requested the court to award custody of the child to her mother and to review its ruling on access rights . His application was dismissed on DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , referring once again to the shortcomings of the court - appointed experts’ report and reiterating his request for custody of the child to be returned to the mother .

In CARDINAL separate decisions of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the first appeal inadmissible on the ground that it had been lodged out of time and dismissed the second one .

In the second decision ORG noted that the proceedings were still pending , including the application made by the mother in the meantime for the father ’s parental rights to be forfeited . In particular , as the lower court had observed , certain factors at the root of the case subsisted , such as the mother ’s opposition to taking her daughter back to live with her and the serious psychological problems affecting the girl ’s relationship with the applicant . Having regard , therefore , to the temporary nature of the child ’s placement in a children ’s home , ORG considered premature any decision altering the current position . The court did not rule on the applicant ’s allegations regarding the conduct of the experts’ investigations .

On DATE , following a series of reports by the social services , ORG authorised the girl ’s mother to stay with her daughter on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG again , requesting that in view of his daughter ’s increasing anxiety in the home , she be removed as a matter of urgency and entrusted either to his care or to her paternal grandmother ’s .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application . It found , among other things , that the paternal grandmother had in the past refused to take the child into her care and that the applicant had not shown that her attitude had changed . It also noted that since being placed in the home , the child no longer suffered from the fits of hysteria which she had had when living with her mother , was seeing the applicant more often and had made no further request to leave the home . ORG also pointed out that according to the social services’ report of CARDINAL DATE , the girl had , moreover , refused to spend DATE by the sea with the applicant . Lastly , the court held that if the child were to go to her paternal grandmother , that would distance her from her mother , whereas she should be encouraged to resume a relationship with her mother despite the latter ’s limitations and her inability to demonstrate real affection for her daughter . Indeed , the child had clearly expressed a desire to go back to her mother .

On DATE ORG revoked its decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered custody of the child to be returned to the mother . It also limited the applicant ’s access to once DATE in a neutral place to be agreed with the social services .

The applicant applied to the court on DATE , expressing his satisfaction with the decision to remove his daughter from the home , but complaining of the decision to maintain restrictions on his access rights .

On DATE ORG allowed his application in part and ordered that the applicant ’s access should be increased from once to twice DATE .

On DATE ORG authorised the child to stay with her paternal aunt for the holiday , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the court granted the applicant the right to see his daughter one afternoon a week . The court stressed , however , that relations between the social services and the applicant were extremely problematical , because the latter kept sending them written requests but showed no real willingness to enter into a dialogue .

The applicant appealed , seeking increased contact with his daughter , but his appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . Its decision was based on a psychiatrist ’s report of DATE , according to which the child ’s mental condition had greatly deteriorated and there was a risk that she would have a mental breakdown . The fact that the girl described her parents as mentally deranged and wanted to return to the home showed how precarious her mental stability was . ORG concluded that the child was above all in need of psychological care and certainly not of more frequent contact with her father .

The applicant had in the meantime filed complaints against the court - appointed experts with ORG at ORG and ORG at ORG . He submitted that the court experts had performed their task negligently , that they had failed to contact the privately commissioned experts and were consequently guilty of a failure to discharge one of their obligations ( omissione d’atti d’ufficio ) under LAW . The second complaint was struck out on DATE on the ground that , in the absence of malicious intent , it concerned problems regarding the experts’ method of conducting their investigations , which it fell to the judge ordering the expert report to assess after hearing submissions from the parties and their experts . ORG also pointed out that it had been for the privately commissioned expert to take action and contact the court - appointed experts . No action was taken on the first complaint .

On DATE the NORP DATE ORG published an article containing statements by the President of ORG , PERSON , about the court ’s child - custody work . In that article PERSON used the following expressions , among others :

“ We are not child - snatchers . ”

“ Our role is to release children from their suffering . ”

On DATE the same daily published a letter signed by the applicant which was also a reply to the first statements made by PERSON The applicant related the episode in which his daughter had been placed in a children ’s home and made the following comments , among others :

“ The act in itself is CARDINAL of sequestration or , at the very least , violence towards children . Whether that act should not be considered as violence or sequestration on the ground that a court is involved is quite another question . ”

“ This little girl suffered shock and emotional stress to a cruel degree . ”

“ Clearly the cruelty of the exercise can not fail to have tarnished the ORG ’s image and lessened confidence in an institution which should guarantee the greatest respect for human beings . ”

“ Among other things , the inappropriateness of the method used derives from the fact that an urgent decision was not implemented until DATE after it had been taken . ”

“ In such a case I doubt whether the President , Judge PERSON , ... can say ‘ we have released a child from its suffering’ or ‘ we are not child - snatchers’ . ”

NORP In a letter published in GPE on DATE the President of the court replied . Among other things , PERSON stated :

In a letter published in GPE on DATE the applicant responded to ORG ’s letter , complaining that the judge had not only called him a liar , but had also revealed confidential information about his case , which in a small provincial town such as PERSON had made it easy to identify the persons involved and had left people feeling puzzled .

On DATE ORG also published a letter from a group of the applicant ’s colleagues expressing their solidarity with him .

On DATE the applicant asked for PERSON to be replaced by a different judge in the custody proceedings in respect of his daughter . He alleged that PERSON was biased on account of the heated exchange of views they had had in the press .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s challenge for being out of time . The court held that , quite apart from the fact that the ground relied on by the applicant did not appear among those formally provided for in LAW , the application had in any event been made out of time since it should have been filed before the date set for the decision ( taken on DATE - see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Besides , the applicant could have foreseen that PERSON might preside over the court , since in the event that more than the required number of judges was available , the most senior member would act as President and the applicant had known that PERSON was a member of the division which would be trying his case . At all events , as the decision had already been taken , the applicant had a remedy in ordinary proceedings , namely lodging an appeal , for submitting that complaint .

Following the statements made by ORG in his letter published on DATE , the applicant had also lodged a complaint with ORG at ORG . Proceedings on that complaint were officially discontinued on DATE as the preliminary investigating judge at ORG found that PERSON had confined himself to replying to the applicant ’s first letter , correcting the inaccuracies in the applicant ’s allegations and stressing that the conduct of all those involved in the case had been right and proper . The only offensive comments , in the judge ’s view , were those the applicant had directed at ORG , whom he had called a “ child - snatcher ” . PERSON ’s reply had been appropriate and moderate and had not disclosed any confidential information acquired in the course of his duties as it would not in any event have been possible to identify the persons involved in the case . It was rather the applicant who had disclosed the circumstances in which the child had been removed from her mother ’s custody . There had thus been no injury to the reputation or honour of the applicant .

The applicant also applied DATE unsuccessfully DATE to ORG ( Consiglio superiore della magistratura ) .

Under LAW ,

“ Parents have a duty to maintain , educate and bring up their children , including children born out of wedlock .

Where the parents are incapable of performing those duties , the legislature shall make appropriate provision .

Under LAW ,

“ If the conduct of CARDINAL or both parents is not such as to justify forfeiting parental authority ... , but is harmful to the child , the court may , if appropriate , take any necessary measure and may also order the child to be removed from the family home . Such measures may be rescinded at any time . ”

Mr PERSON applied to the Commission on DATE . He alleged , among other things , an infringement of his right to respect for his family life on account of his daughter ’s having been placed in a children ’s home , bias on the part of the President of ORG and injury to his reputation and to his family life as a result of the statements made by him to the press ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention ) .

The Commission declared the application ( no . CARDINAL ) admissible on DATE . In its report of CARDINAL DATE ( former LAW ) , it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of LAW of the manner in which the experts had conducted their investigations and of LAW on account of the President of ORG statements to the press .

The applicant said that the measures taken by ORG had contributed to the almost irretrievable breakdown of his relationship with his daughter . He alleged in particular that the court had based its decision on an expert report which was unfounded and procedurally flawed . He submitted that there had been a violation of LAW , which provides :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence .

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 NORP 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 Government disputed that submission . The ORG found that although the restrictive measures taken by the NORP authorities against the parents , including the applicant , had been based on relevant and sufficient grounds , there had been a violation of LAW of the manner in which the expert report ordered by the court had been prepared .

The ORG points out that the enjoyment by parent and child of each other ’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life and that domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by LAW see the Bronda v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . In the instant case the restrictive measures taken by the NORP authorities against the applicant amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his family life . Such interference will constitute a violation of LAW unless it is “ in accordance with the law ” , pursues an aim or aims that are legitimate under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and can be regarded as “ necessary in a NORP society ” .

The ORG is of the view that the interference was in accordance with the law , in particular with LAW , and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others . The question remains as to whether that interference was also “ necessary in a NORP society ” .

CARDINALReports CARDINAL-VII , pp . CARDINAL , § § DATE ) and did not exceed the margin of appreciation afforded to them under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL .

Accordingly , there has not been a violation of LAW arising from the measures taken to remove the child from the applicant .

The ORG does not agree with the applicant ’s submission , which was accepted by the Commission , that he has been the victim of a violation of LAW of the court - appointed experts’ conduct of their investigations .

CARDINAL

In that connection the ORG submitted that , while it was true that in custody proceedings the parties had more limited powers of intervention than in ordinary proceedings ( owing to the non - contentious nature of the proceedings , which were pursued exclusively with the aim of protecting children ’s interests ) , it should not be overlooked that the applicant had always been given a hearing , that he had always been informed of all matters concerning the case and had been able to comment on them . As regards , in particular , the allegation that one of the court - appointed experts also carried on business as a street trader , the Government disputed the veracity of that allegation and pointed out that an assessment of the professional competence of an expert could only be based on work done in that capacity . The ORG submitted , moreover , that a violation could not be found merely on the basis of the manner in which the experts had conducted their investigations when , as the ORG had found in its report , the interference with the applicant ’s family life was in itself justified .

The ORG considers as the Government did , that the foregoing principles regarding the GPE role in the decision - making process ( see paragraph DATE ) were not breached in the instant case . The applicant can not be said to have played no role in the decision - making process . On the contrary , he took an active part in it ; he was always able to submit his arguments in the national courts and to study all the documents . Furthermore , CARDINAL of the privately commissioned experts had been able to discuss with the court - appointed experts the results of the tests conducted in the course of their investigations . The decision - making process as a whole does not appear to have been unfair , and excessive weight should not be attached to the fact that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL experts was also a street trader ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that connection the ORG notes that the applicant did not expressly question that expert ’s professional competence as a psychologist . The ORG considers that the fact that the expert was also a street trader does not detract from his expertise as a psychologist .

As regards the complaint that CARDINAL of the court - appointed experts did not interview the applicant , the ORG considers that the court decision setting out the purpose of the expert opinion was worded in terms sufficiently general to allow the experts some discretion as to the precise manner in which their report would be prepared . In any event , the results of the experts’ work were examined by both experts jointly . In this context account should also be taken of the fact that the applicant failed to participate in all the diagnostic psychological tests ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the ORG ’s view , it might perhaps have been desirable for the privately commissioned experts to be more fully involved in the various stages of the court - appointed experts’ assignment and not only at the meeting to assess the results , although there is nothing in the case file to suggest that the privately commissioned experts actually asked to be involved further . Nevertheless , the circumstances of which the applicant complains do not suffice in themselves to have adversely affected the fairness of the proceedings , which were based not only on the expert report in question but also on a series of social - services reports ( see , inter alia , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In sum , the manner in which the expert report was prepared did not breach LAW .

The applicant complained of bias on the part of the President of ORG , PERSON , and submitted that his case should not have been heard by a court presided over by a person with whom he had had an argument in the press . He alleged that this had given rise to a violation of LAW , which provides :

“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal ... ”

The Government considered that there could be no doubt as to the President of the court ’s impartiality . The decisions adopted by the court presided over by ORG had not subsequently been varied and the proceedings on the complaints which the applicant had filed against the President had been discontinued . Furthermore , it was the applicant who had started the controversy with his letter in ORG portraying the court ’s work in an unfavourable light and he had been supported in that action by the journalist responsible for the column . The President of the court had therefore simply considered it his duty to clarify matters , having regard in particular to the risk of misinformation on account of the relative importance given by the daily in question to the applicant ’s story .

The applicant disputed that argument .

The ORG stresses , above all , that the judicial authorities are required to exercise maximum discretion with regard to the cases with which they deal in order to preserve their image as impartial judges . That discretion should dissuade them from making use of the press , even when provoked . It is the higher demands of justice and the elevated nature of judicial office which impose that duty .

DATE . The ORG considers , as the ORG did , that the fact that the President of the court publicly used expressions which implied that he had already formed an unfavourable view of the applicant ’s case before presiding over the court that had to decide it clearly appears incompatible with the impartiality required of any court , as laid down in LAW . The statements made by the President of the court were such as to objectively justify the applicant ’s fears as to his impartiality ( see , mutatis mutandis , the PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports CARDINAL-III , p. CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

There has accordingly been a breach of LAW .

The applicant also complained of a violation of LAW arising from ORG ’s statements published by ORG and alleged that injury had been caused to his reputation and his family life .

The Government disputed that submission .

The ORG considers that no injury to the applicant ’s right to respect for his private and family life can be established under this head , having regard to the fact that in his letter of DATE the applicant had himself disclosed his identity .

Accordingly , there has not been a violation of LAW in this regard .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides :

“ If the ORG finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto , and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made , the ORG shall , if necessary , afford just satisfaction to the injured party . ”

The applicant sought , firstly , MONEY ( ITL ) in compensation for pecuniary damage , relying in particular on the damage done to his professional image as a surgeon . He also claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

DATE . The Government did not make any submissions on the issue .

The ORG notes that it has no evidence on which to find that the applicant sustained pecuniary damage . As to non - pecuniary damage , it considers that the finding of a violation of LAW constitutes sufficient compensation . In that connection , it takes account , inter alia , of the fact that the applicant significantly contributed to fuelling the controversy concerning him in the press .

The applicant sought primarily reimbursement of the expenses incurred in the proceedings in the domestic courts in the sum of ITL CARDINAL ( the applicant produced fee notes for the custody proceedings and a breakdown of the amounts paid for the privately commissioned expert reports ) .

The ORG notes that the documents supplied by the applicant relate only to the expenses incurred in connection with the placement of his daughter – the applicant did not claim reimbursement of any amounts incurred to prevent or have redressed a violation of LAW and considers , in the light of its conclusions regarding LAW , that it is not necessary to award the applicant reimbursement under this head .

As regards the expenses incurred before the Convention institutions , the ORG , making its assessment on an equitable basis as required by LAW and having regard to the fact that the applicant presented his own case , awards him ITL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for costs and expenses .

According to the information available to the ORG , the statutory rate of interest applicable in GPE at the date of adoption of the present judgment is PERCENT per annum .

Done in NORP , and notified in writing on DATE , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court .

In accordance with LAW , the partly dissenting opinion of Mr GPE is annexed to this judgment .

PERSON

E.F.


The applicant , a NORP citizen born in DATE , resides in GPE , GPE . Before the ORG she is represented by Mr Jan GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

The applicant and ORG have CARDINAL children : a son , A , born in DATE , and a daughter , H , born in DATE . Following the GPE divorce in DATE , the children lived with their mother , the applicant , and had regular contacts with GPE who lives in GPE . The applicant later started a relationship with GPE who moved in with the applicant and the CARDINAL children . In DATE it was discovered that he had sexually assaulted H and in DATE he was convicted and sentenced to DATE in prison . As a consequence , during the period of DATE the social authorities in ORG made an investigation of the family ’s situation .

On DATE ORG removed the children from their home against the applicant ’s will . The applicant then instituted proceedings in ORG ( namsretten ) of ORG , invoking the DATE Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of ORG and requesting that the children be returned to her . On DATE the court gave a decision in her favour and on CARDINAL DATE the children were returned to GPE .

On DATE ORG instituted custody proceedings in ORG ( tingsrätten ) of Strömstad , requesting that custody of H be transferred to him . ORG ordered the social authorities in ORG to submit an opinion in the case , which they did on DATE . The opinion contained factual information on the family ’s situation but did not express any preference as to which parent should be awarded custody .

ORG held an oral hearing on DATE . The applicant , GPE and their respective lawyers were present at the hearing . By an interim decision of CARDINAL DATE the court decided that , pending the final determination of the custody issue , H should continue to live with the applicant .

ORG appealed against the interim decision to ORG ( hovrätten ) for LOC . The applicant requested that the appellate court hold a further hearing in the case .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for a hearing , finding it unnecessary . It further quashed ORG decision and prescribed that H should live with GPE on an interim basis . No appeal lay against the appellate court ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG ( ORG domstolen ) , requesting that ORG reopen the interim issue or decide that the lack of a hearing in ORG constituted miscarriage of justice ( domvilla ) .

By a decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s petition .

On DATE the social authorities submitted its opinion on the custody issue to ORG . Noting that the social authorities recommended that GPE be awarded custody of H , the applicant considered that there were little prospects of success in the case . She proposed therefore that she and GPE should continue to have joint custody of H but that H should live with ORG agreement to this effect was signed by the applicant and GPE on DATE . Subsequently , at the request of both parties , ORG struck the case out of its list of cases .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born on DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .

NORP In DATE M.O.D. ( a private person ) found a packet of opium ( макова соломка ) . M.O.D. , with the applicant 's agreement , later hid the packet in the applicant 's house with a view to its subsequent sale and the purchase of alcohol .

On DATE the captain of LOC of ORG ( the “ CICD ” ) issued a resolution authorising the purchase of opium from the applicant on the basis of information received from undisclosed sources . This resolution was approved by the LOC prosecutor and the Head of ORG of the Interior .

On DATE ORG ( an undercover police agent operating under a pseudonym ) received instructions from police officers ( міліціонерів ) to purchase some of the opium . He also received the sum of CARDINAL hryvnas ( ORG ) for that purpose .

On DATE the applicant and M.O.D. were apprehended for selling drugs to ORG The opium , which weighed QUANTITY , was seized by the police , together with the marked money received by the applicant from ORG The police prepared records of the purchase ( про оперативну закупку ) , finding , confiscation ( віднайдення та виїмки ) and weighing ( взвішування ) of the substance and of the search of the buyer ( акт огляду покупця ) . Statements were drawn up in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , as required by the relevant provisions of LAW . The applicant and M.O.D. were not placed in detention , but were released on an undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE the investigator of ORG ( the “ Division ” ) questioned CARDINAL witnesses ( ORG and GPE PERSON ) . They were the police officers from the ORG who had organised the purchase and subsequently arrested the applicant and M.O.D.

On DATE the ORG 's investigator informed the applicant that he was entitled to have a representative . The investigator relied on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The applicant stated that he refused to be represented by a lawyer and that this decision was not related to his financial situation .

On DATE the ORG 's investigator issued a resolution accusing the applicant of being involved in the purchase , sale and storage of narcotic substances with intent to sell , premeditated by a group of persons ( LAW ) . The applicant was questioned by the investigator as an accused .

NORP The applicant claims that in the course of the investigation he and his relatives requested legal representation .

On DATE ORG of the GPE region ( GPE районний суд ORG області ) held a preliminary hearing . It assumed jurisdiction over the case and adjourned the hearing to CARDINAL DATE at the applicant 's request . The applicant informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by a lawyer but wished to represent himself at the hearing . The hearing was adjourned upon ORG 's request .

On DATE the court resumed its examination of the case . The participants in the hearing were the prosecutor , the applicant and M.O.D. , a witness police officer from the ORG ( S.V.V. ) and PERSON , the applicant 's neighbour , who had witnessed the arrest and seizure of money by the police officers .

During the hearing the court accepted the applicant 's decision not to be represented by a lawyer . It also decided to hear the case in the absence of certain prosecution witnesses ( P.Yu . PERSON and ORG ) , who had been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing but did not appear before the court . The judge also informed the applicant and his co - accused that a guilty plea might be accepted by the court as a mitigating factor .

On DATE , at the hearing , the applicant pleaded partly guilty to the charges against him . In particular , he stated that he considered himself guilty of storing the opium . In the course of the trial the applicant again rejected legal assistance and stated that he wished to present his own arguments for reasons unrelated to his difficult financial situation .

During the hearing the applicant and his co - accused did not attempt to challenge any evidence and made no pleas , except those relating to the acknowledgment of their guilt and the mitigation of their sentence . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of involvement in the unlawful purchase and possession of drugs , with intent to sell , premeditated by a group of persons ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ) . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered that his personal property be confiscated . In particular , ORG found that ,

“ ... in the course of the hearing [ the applicant ] partly acknowledged his guilt ...

... in the course of the preliminary investigation witnesses [ P.Yu . M. ] and [ ORG ] ( police officers ) explained that [ ORG ] was to purchase [ opium ] at ORG 's place of residence ...

The defendant 's guilt ... is also proved by other evidence , in particular the act of purchase , the record of searching the buyer , the record of the undercover purchase , the record of seizure , the record of the weighing , [ and ] the forensic expert 's conclusion [ as to the amount of dry opium poppy ] ...

... the court considers that the following corpus juris , envisaged by LAW ... , can be found in the actions of NORP O.V. : - the unlawful purchase [ and ] possession with intent to sell , premeditated by a group of persons ... ”

On DATE the applicant appealed against his conviction to ORG . In particular , he stated that he had only been storing the opium , and that his sentence should be milder , not involving a deprivation of liberty .

On DATE ORG , in the absence of the applicant and in the presence of a prosecutor , rejected the applicant 's appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE . The judgment became final .

On DATE the ORG reviewed a petition from the applicant 's wife , asking that he be assigned legal representation . On DATE the ORG appointed Mr ORG as the public defender ( громадський захисник ) to represent the applicant .

On DATE Mr Shulgin lodged complaints with the President of ORG , seeking permission to review the case file and authorisation to meet the applicant in order to prepare an appeal against the judgment .

On DATE the judge of ORG refused this application on the ground that the law did not allow for such an action by a public defender . In particular , the court informed Mr Shulgin :

“ ... ORG informs you that your application of DATE with regard to providing the materials of the criminal case ... and an opportunity to meet the defendant in order to represent him in supervisory proceedings can not be allowed because , in accordance with the legislation of GPE , a public defender ( громадський захисник ) can only participate in the judicial consideration of the case and the law does not afford him a right of appeal against the verdict .

Also , Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ... provides an exhaustive list of those persons who have the right to lodge protests against court verdicts , rulings or resolutions that have entered into force , and LAW of LAW ... sets out the grounds and the procedure for [ such a ] supervisory review ... ”

On DATE the applicant was detained for the purpose of serving his sentence and placed in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC No . CARDINAL , where he stayed from DATE to DATE .

On arrival at FAC No . CARDINAL the applicant was examined by doctors from the prison 's medical unit and found to be generally healthy .

On DATE the applicant underwent a chest PERSON examination . This examination found no signs of illness .

DATE and DATE , the applicant lodged no complaints or applications with the prison administration for dispatch to third persons .

At some time DATE and DATE , the applicant was transferred from FAC No . CARDINAL to FAC No . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ Penitentiary No . CARDINAL ” ) .

On DATE the applicant arrived at Penitentiary No . CARDINAL . However , he did not undergo the mandatory medical examination for possible tuberculosis .

The applicant was detained in Penitentiary No . CARDINAL from DATE to DATE . He was accommodated in dormitory no . CARDINAL . He had a separate bed and essential furniture , and was provided with clothes and linen . There were CARDINAL other inmates in the dormitory , which had natural ventilation , large glass windows and electricity .

During the applicant 's stay there , he had CARDINAL visits from relatives : CARDINAL from his brother on DATE and CARDINAL from his wife on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the administration of the Penitentiary recorded no correspondence from the applicant . Furthermore , there was no record of a request from the applicant 's representative to meet the applicant among the entries in the prison 's register of citizens ' complaints for DATE .

On DATE , for the first time , the applicant applied to a doctor in Penitentiary No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , complaining that he was experiencing shortness of breath and was coughing up phlegm . On DATE he was examined and an X - ray was taken . Following this examination , a doctor from ORG diagnosed the applicant as suffering from pneumonia and suspected lung cancer . Another chest X - ray was ordered to establish a final diagnosis .

On DATE a further chest X - ray was taken . A radiologist at the Arbuzynsk ORG concluded that the applicant was suffering from lung cancer .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG Penitentiary No . CARDINAL for further medical examinations and treatment . DATE and DATE , the applicant received treatment and underwent further clinical examinations . The final diagnosis was tuberculosis in its early stages .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG Penitentiary No . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ Penitentiary No . CARDINAL ” ; an interregional tuberculosis hospital for convicts ) , where the diagnosis of tuberculosis was confirmed .

From DATE the applicant underwent in - patient treatment at Penitentiary No . CARDINAL . The Government claimed that he received all the medication prescribed by the recommendations of ORG .

On DATE , owing to an improvement in his state of health , the applicant was transferred to outpatient treatment . From CARDINAL DATE , the applicant received regular outpatient treatment in order to prevent a relapse . However , the lengthy treatment for tuberculosis led to side - effects , such as sight impairment ( погіршення зору ) and dizziness .

Since DATE the applicant has been detained at Penitentiary No . CARDINAL , with a diagnosis of clinically cured tuberculosis .

According to the register of correspondence of Penitentiary No . CARDINAL , the applicant sent a letter to his wife on DATE . No other correspondence was sent by him .

On DATE the applicant received a CARDINAL-hour visit from his brother .

The Government alleged that , in the course of serving his sentence , the applicant received no visits from lawyers or public defenders , and did not submit any applications concerning such visits .

The relevant extracts from Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE read as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to legal assistance . Such assistance is provided free of charge in those cases envisaged by law . Everyone is free to choose the defender of his or her rights ... ”

“ ... A suspect , an accused or a defendant has the right to a defence ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ The defence rights of suspects , accused persons or defendants shall be ensured .

Persons conducting an inquiry , investigators , prosecutors , judges and the courts are obliged to explain to the suspect , accused or defendant that , in order to have the benefit of a defence lawyer before the first examination , they [ the competent officials ] must draw up a written statement . They should also provide the suspect , accused or defendant with an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the means established by law , and ensure the protection of his or her personal and property rights . ”

“ The participation of a defence lawyer during the inquiry and the preliminary investigation and during consideration of the criminal case in the first - instance court is obligatory , save where the suspect , accused person or defendant refuses legal representation in accordance with the procedure established by LAW . ”

“ Suspects , accused persons and defendants have the right to refuse legal representation . A refusal of this nature is only possible at the initiative of the suspect , accused or defendant , and can not be an obstacle to the continued participation of the prosecutor or public accuser in the criminal case , or of defence counsel acting for other suspects , accused persons or defendants .

In the event of a refusal to be represented ... the person conducting the inquiry or the investigator shall draw up a written statement , [ and ] the court shall issue a ruling or the judge shall deliver a resolution . ... ”

“ Defence counsel ... shall be requested to participate in the proceedings by the suspect , accused or defendant , by their lawful representatives , relatives or other persons , in accordance with the authority granted by the suspect , accused person or defendant , or on the basis of an application by them . ... ”

“ ... The verdict must be annulled in the following circumstances :

... ( CARDINAL ) if the case was examined by the court without the participation of defence counsel , where his or her participation is obligatory under the law . ”

Resolution No . DATE of the Cabinet of Ministers of DATE “ On the ration of individuals suffering from tuberculosis and infected with micro - bacteria of tuberculosis ” provides that each adult convict suffering from tuberculosis must receive MONEY per day in food rations .

Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE “ On the approval of the norms of DATE food rations of convicts and persons who are held in pre - trial detention facilities [ GPE ] , sobering - up facilities [ ORG ] and police detention facilities [ ORG ] ” and its Appendix No . CARDINAL ( Norm No . CARDINAL “ On providing food for convicts held in penitentiaries ” ) provide that each convict must receive QUANTITY ( general norm ) and QUANTITY ( norm for special diets ) .

The relevant extracts from the CARDINALnd ORG on the ORG 's activities , covering DATE to DATE ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The issue of what is a reasonable size for a police cell ( or any other type of detainee / prisoner accommodation ) is a difficult question . Many factors have to be taken into account when making such an assessment . However , ORG delegations felt the need for a rough guideline in this area . The following criterion ( seen as a desirable level rather than a minimum standard ) is currently being used when assessing police cells intended for single occupancy for stays in excess of TIME : in the order of QUANTITY , QUANTITY or more between walls , QUANTITY between floor and ceiling . ”

The relevant extracts from the CARDINALth ORG of ORG ( CPT / Inf ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) , relating to “ prison overcrowding ” and “ large capacity dormitories ” , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG . As the ORG 's field of operations has extended throughout the NORP continent , the ORG has encountered huge incarceration rates and resultant severe prison overcrowding . ...

In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions . No doubt , various factors – including those of a cultural nature - can make it preferable in certain countries to provide multi - occupancy accommodation for prisoners rather than individual cells . However , there is little to be said in favour of - and a lot to be said against DATE arrangements under which CARDINAL of prisoners live and sleep together in the same dormitory .

Large - capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives . Moreover , the risk of intimidation and violence is high . Such accommodation arrangements are prone to foster the development of offender subcultures and to facilitate the maintenance of the cohesion of criminal organisations . They can also render proper staff control extremely difficult , if not impossible ; more specifically , in case of prison disturbances , outside interventions involving the use of considerable force are difficult to avoid . With such accommodation , the appropriate allocation of individual prisoners , based on a case by case risk and needs assessment , also becomes an almost impossible exercise . All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level ; further , in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions .

The ORG must nevertheless stress that moves away from large - capacity dormitories towards smaller living units have to be accompanied by measures to ensure that prisoners spend a reasonable part of DATE engaged in purposeful activities of a varied nature outside their living unit . ”

“ An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive . The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention . ”

In so far as it concerns tuberculosis , ORG report on its visit to GPE in DATE ( ORG ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :

“ ... In its CARDINAL previous reports , the ORG dealt at length with this major problem affecting the NORP penitentiary system . In DATE , the state of affairs in the establishments visited was just as desperate as in the past when it came to combating tuberculosis and caring for prisoners suffering from this disease .

The ORG calls on the NORP authorities to ensure that the penitentiary system is in a position to pursue a strategy for effective screening and action against tuberculosis , in keeping with the recommendations it has already made ( cf . paragraphs LOC and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit and paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , as well as paragraph ORG above ) .

... The conditions observed were favourable to the spread of the disease and as such constituted a clear health hazard for patients : in particular , there was no access to natural light or fresh air and hygiene was inadequate . ... Furthermore , in the light of other findings made by its delegation , the ORG recommends that all tuberculosis patients be offered TIME in the open air per day .

... Recommendations ( on health care services ) :

- the necessary measures to be taken to ensure that penitentiary establishments have a sufficient supply of appropriate medicines , a particularly high priority to be given to the supply of medicines for the treatment of tuberculosis ( paragraphs ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ;

- ensure in all penitentiary establishments that every newly - arrived prisoner is properly interviewed and physically examined by a medical doctor as soon as possible after his / her arrival ; save for in exceptional circumstances , that interview / examination to be carried out on DATE of admission , especially in so far as remand establishments are concerned ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ;

- the NORP authorities to ensure that the penitentiary system is in a position to pursue a strategy for effective screening and action against tuberculosis , in keeping with the recommendations already made by ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ;

- all tuberculosis patients to be offered TIME in the open air per day ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG report on GPE read as follows :

“ ... Tuberculosis is another important problem facing GPE . Although coverage with ORG has been increasing since DATE to PERCENT by DATE , reported case notification rates have more than doubled since independence , from CARDINAL per CARDINAL in DATE to CARDINAL in DATE , with an estimated case notification rate of CARDINAL per CARDINAL in DATE . The situation is especially critical in the prison population , which accounts for PERCENT of all tuberculosis patients in GPE . It has been estimated that of a prison population of now CARDINAL have active GPE , which equates a prevalence rate of CARDINAL per CARDINAL . Moreover , PERCENT of deaths in prisoners are reported to be due to GPE . At the same time , drug - resistant tuberculosis is also increasing rapidly , which poses a substantial additional burden to the health care system as it is vastly more difficult and costly to treat . A study from ORG suggests that PERCENT of new tuberculosis patients have resistance to CARDINAL drug ; multi - drug resistant tuberculosis appears to be present in PERCENT of new cases ...

The worsening of the tuberculosis epidemic in GPE noted earlier has been attributed to a number of factors . Lack of sufficient funds has resulted in failure to modernize and equip tuberculosis facilities and , more generally , to maintain overall treatment services , leading to a decline in access to services . Also , the continuing increase of tuberculosis rates was facilitated by the emergence of the HIV epidemic , with a reported PERCENT of adults dying from AIDS in DATE having tuberculosis . At present , the share of tuberculosis cases that are HIV - positive is estimated at CARDINAL per CARDINAL population . The increase in multi - drug resistant tuberculosis resulted from inadequate treatment and shortages in the drug supply . In response to the tuberculosis epidemic , ORG adopted a ORG for CARDINAL . This initiative gained major support by ORG with a loan of GPE MONEY for the Tuberculosis and ORG . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG Sector - related Country Assistance Strategy ( ORG ) read as follows ( document no . CARDINAL-UA , DATE ) :

“ ... GPE has had a long history of effectively controlling tuberculosis and other infectious diseases . The specialized physicians and other medical workers are well - trained , and the system of tuberculosis control has a long and proud history . The system , however , has proven financially difficult to maintain in periods of economic uncertainty . Throughout the country , both in ORG ( MOH ) and in prisons , TB facilities need to be modernized , especially laboratory services , so that GPE cases can be detected faster and more effectively . Outpatient services also need to be improved so that treatment regimens can be better monitored and complied with . A detailed analysis of TB sector issues is presented in section B.

... Epidemiological Situation of Tuberculosis : As an outcome of its comprehensive and effective tuberculosis ( ORG ) control system , in DATE , GPE reported its lowest number of GPE cases in DATE , CARDINAL for a case rate of CARDINAL per CARDINAL population . As in many of the newly independent states , tuberculosis has increased dramatically in GPE following independence from the former GPE . By DATE , the number of cases had reached CARDINAL , with a case rate of CARDINAL , a doubling of the rate compared to DATE . Case rates in the administrative regions ranged from CARDINAL in GPE to CARDINAL in the NORP region . PERCENT of all TB patients in GPE are in prison and pre-[trial ] detention centres ( SIZOs ) . The problems of over - crowding , malnutrition , late diagnosis and lack of drugs are particularly well - known in prisons and aggravate the GPE situation . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL prisoners in GPE have active GPE ( prevalence of an astronomical CARDINAL per CARDINAL ) . PERCENT of deaths in prisoners are due to ORG .

Drug - resistant ORG , which is significantly more difficult and costly to treat , is also increasing rapidly . Preliminary results indicate that CARDINAL of all patients have resistance to CARDINAL drug , while resistance to isoniazid and rifampicin ( referred to as multi - drug resistant GPE , or ORG , see annex ICARDINAL , technical terms ) is present in PERCENT of new cases .

... Overall , PERCENT of cases occur in DATE age groups . The ratio of reported cases of TB in men to women is CARDINAL . The disease had risen PERCENT in urban populations DATE , while the increase in rural populations was PERCENT . Cases of TB in GPE tend to be diagnosed at DATE , more advanced stage of the disease than in other areas of the world .

A combination of factors has contributed to the worsening epidemic . Treatment services were not sustainable during the period of economic decline . Access to care was reduced and treatment default rates increased with the decentralization of services to region and rayon dispensaries ... an early merging of the ORG and the HIV epidemics was witnessed . In DATE , PERCENT of adults diagnosed with AIDS and PERCENT of adults dying from AIDS had tuberculosis . The increase in multi - drug resistant TB resulted from inadequate treatment and drug supply shortages . ”

The relevant extracts from the ORG report read as follows :

“ ... GPE 's estimated tuberculosis case rate of CARDINAL cases per year per CARDINAL people is the eighth highest in LOC and LOC . According to ORG : WHO Report DATE , GPE had CARDINAL GPE cases in DATE . Of these , CARDINAL were cases of sputum smear - positive ( ORG ) ORG , a rate of CARDINAL cases per CARDINAL people . In DATE , ORG ( ORG ) reported CARDINAL ORG cases for an incidence rate of CARDINAL cases per CARDINAL people , a near doubling of the rate . In GPE , significant barriers to implementation of the WHO - recommended Directly Observed Therapy , Short - Course ( DOTS ) approach to GPE existed , a result of entrenched and outdated medical approaches to GPE treatment and management . The GPE indicators also reflect the deterioration of GPE 's health care system since the break - up of GPE in DATE . This break - up facilitated the spread of infectious diseases , including ORG and multidrug - resistant ORG ( MDR - TB ) , in many former NORP republics . GPE was unable to sustain the previous TB infrastructure and needed new approaches to combat the growing GPE problem . ”


The applicants are NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and living in GPE in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , Head of ORG of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants married in DATE . They have a daughter ORG born on DATE . As the daughter ’s surname the parents wished to give her the mother ’s , i.e. the first applicant ’s surname PERSON was refused on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . Based on Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON , henceforth referred to as ORG ; see below , Relevant domestic law ) , the ORG found that the child would obtain the family name which in the present case was the second applicant ’s , i.e. the father ’s surname PERSON

The ORG appeal against this decision was dismissed by ORG ( ORG ) of the GPE of GPE on DATE . The decision stated :

“ CARDINAL . If the parents of the child are married , the child obtains the family name ( LAW § CARDINAL ORG ) . As a rule this is the name of the husband , exceptionally it will be the name of the mother if the parents have chosen this name as the family name according to LAW . If the mother puts her name first according to LAW § CARDINAL CC , this will have no effect on the name of the common child ...

NORP There is agreement with the parents that there would be discrimination contrary to LAW if the family name was based solely on the name of the husband . But no right can be deduced for the parents freely to chose the family name of their common child . The applicants overlook in their argumentation that the reform of matrimonial law considered the equality of man and woman to the extent that the spouses may obtain , according to LAW , the authorisation to have the woman ’s name as the family name , following an administrative procedure to change the name , if there are commendable grounds . This possibility to change names in case of commendable grounds , in respect of which only minor conditions ( geringe PERSON ) may be attached , is more easily attained than the CARDINAL stated in LAW . Justification herefor is that marriage in any event will oblige CARDINAL partner to renounce her / his name , for which reason there is less public interest in the irreversibility of a family name than in the case of LAW § CARDINAL CC ... A commendable ground can be seen in every , even only remotely understandable , not clearly unlawful or immoral reason ... Even if LAW continues to uphold the principle of the unity of the family name , the spouses are free to apply , with the Government of their GPE of residence , for the authorisation to employ the woman ’s name as the family name . The legislator thus enabled the spouses to choose as a family name the woman ’s name and to pass this name on to any common children ... The only difference in LAW to a complete freedom of choice lies in the envisaged administrative procedure which , according to LAW ) of LAW is free of costs . Contrary to the applicants’ opinion , this merely formal difference can not amount to a breach of the prohibition of discrimination within the meaning of LAW .

Upon announcing their marriage the applicants renounced filing a request within the meaning of LAW § CARDINAL CC . As a result , they have opted for the name of the husband as the family name . According to LAW , their common daughter ORG obtains the family name of the parents ... ”

The applicants’ further appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( Bundesgericht ) , the decision being served on DATE . In its decision the ORG recalled that the applicants had not opted for the possibility to choose the wife ’s name as the family name . The case concerned not only the interests of the parents but , above all , the interests of the child who had an independent right to a family name and to be attached to the family . It would not be possible to grant parents with CARDINAL child the right freely to choose the family name for every child . It was not clear why a child ’s right to identity and individuality should demand the free choice of name for the parents , and LAW did not grant such a freedom of choice . Insofar as the applicants pointed out that there would be discrimination in respect of whichever name was chosen as the family name that of the husband or that of the wife , the ORG considered that it lay in the nature of things that parents had to agree on CARDINAL name for the child .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code state :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Government of the GPE of residence may grant a person the change of name , if there are important reasons herefor .

( CARDINAL ) The request of the spouses to have the name of the wife as the family name is to be granted if there are commendable reasons ( achtenswerte GPE , intérêts légitimes ) . .... ”

In practice , such “ commendable reasons ” are assumed if they are worthy of consideration and reasonable . The procedure envisaged under LAW is free of charge ( see BGE [ ORG ] CARDINAL I p. CARDINAL ) . After marriage , the name may only be changed if the conditions of LAW have been met .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG state :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The name of the husband is the family name of the couple .

( CARDINAL ) The bride may , however , declare before ORG that she wishes to place her previous name before the family name . ... ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL CC provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the parents are married , the child obtains their family name . ...

Section CARDINALa § CARDINAL of the Ordinance on Civil Status ( Zivilstandsverordnung ) , which was introduced after the ORG ’s PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-B , states :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The bride may declare to ORG that she wishes to keep her previous name , followed by the family name ( LAW § LAW and CARDINAL ORG ) . The bridegroom has the same possibility , if the spouses file the request to have the wife ’s name as the family name after the marriage . ... ”

According to CARDINAL § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , no costs will be imposed if , upon marriage , bride and bridegroom issue declarations as to their names .