CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2024

.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 } Published on 30 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17443/17 Vladislav TODOSIICIUC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 February 2017 communicated on 10 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the Moldovan authorities to change the applicant’s surname, on the basis of his change of name following his same-sex civil partnership concluded abroad. On 29 August 2014 the applicant entered into a registered civil partnership with his same-sex partner in Switzerland. The applicant chose his partner’s surname, under which he holds his residence permit, health insurance and bank account in Switzerland. The applicant submitted a formal request to the Embassy of the Republic of Moldova in Switzerland to change his surname to that of his partner. As the Embassy did not process his request, on 25 February 2015 the applicant filed another request with the Civil Registry Office (CRO). The CRO replied by a letter relying on the public order of the Republic of Moldova under which same-sex partnerships were not recognised and explaining that accordingly the documents confirming the applicant’s civil partnership had no legal consequences and could not serve as grounds for any change of name. The applicant challenged the refusal before the domestic courts. He noted that after having adopted his partner’s surname, he had two different identities and that, in accordance with Article 13 of the Law No. 100/2001 on civil status acts, he had notified the authorities of the changes in his civil status requesting his surname to be changed. At the preliminary stage of the proceedings, the CRO submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the pre-trial procedure because its above reply could not be regarded as a proper refusal to grant his request, but as general information about non recognition of same-sex marriages. The first instance court agreed with the CRO and struck his case out for failure to comply with the pre-trial procedure. However, on 20 October 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision and ordered a hearing on the merits, finding that the applicant had complied with the procedural rules and that the CRO’s preliminary objection had been ill-founded. On 7 December 2015, having heard the case on the merits, the Buiucani District Court instructed the CRO to issue a document confirming the change of the applicant’s surname. On appeal, on 11 May 2016 the Chișinău Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judgment, finding, inter alia , that the applicant had not followed the correct procedure in that he had not submitted a formal request with the local CRO service in the area of his registered residence. The applicant appealed, arguing that he had followed the legal procedure provided for citizens living abroad by submitting his request to the Embassy of the Republic of Moldova in Switzerland, where he lived, and that his only request was to change his surname and not to recognise his relationship. On 28 September 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the appellate court’s judgment in full. The applicant complains that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of his right to respect for private life on the basis of his sexual orientation. He complains specifically under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ refusal to change his surname based on his civil partnership registered abroad. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of a fair trial and limited access to the domestic courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to court for the determination of his appeal against the authorities’ refusal to grant his change of surname in Moldovan civil records, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79 and 96-99, 5 April 2018)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his private life on the ground of his sexual orientation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, due to his inability to change his surname in Moldovan civil records based on his same-sex civil partnership concluded in Switzerland (see, mutatis mutandis , Pajić v. Croatia , no. 68453/13, §§ 53-60, 23 February 2016;   Ünal Tekeli v. Turke y , no. 29865/96, §§ 42 and 49-52, ECHR 2004-X (extracts))?