CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48511/15 Milovanka STJEPANOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 12 September 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Serbian authorities’ refusal to allow a change of the forname and surname chosen by the applicant (“Hudž   Lavizob”), finding it to be contrary to the local customs and tradition. The applicant complains that the said refusal amounted to a violation of her right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. She maintains that the impugned refusal also constituted a form of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     The applicant is invited to provide the information to the Court about the linguistic or other origins of the name “Hudž Lavizob”.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, as a result of the domestic authorities’ refusal to register the name she chose, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Johansson v.   Finland , no. 10163/02, § § 28-39, 6 September 2007; Güzel Erdagöz v.   Turkey , no. 37483/02, §§ 43-56, 21 October 2008, and Aktaş and Aslaniskender v.   Turkey , nos.   18684/07 and 21101/07, §§   42-49, 25   June 2019, with further reference therein)?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article   14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article   8, and/or Article   1 of Protocol   No.   12?   4.     The Government are requested to submit the relevant law and practice concerning refusals to allow a change in the civil status register of names which are found to be contrary to the public interest, in particular to the local customs and tradition.