Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Recognition of a Surname and Validity

August 16, 2006/in /by Veronika Gaertner
image_pdfimage_print

In (C-96/04) Standesamt Stadt Niebüll, the ECJ negated jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Amtsgericht Niebüll in its reference for a preliminary ruling under Art.234 EC.
The background of the case was the following: A child of two German nationals was born in Denmark. The child received – according to Danish law – a double-barrelled name composed of his father´s and mother´s surnames, who did not use a common married name. After moving to Germany, German registry offices refused to recognize the surname of the child as it had been determined in Denmark, since according to German private international law (Art.10 EGBGB) the name of a person is subject to the law of his/her nationality, i.e. in this case German law. According to German law it is not possible for a child to bear a double-barrelled name consisting of the two surnames of his/her parents.

The Standesamt (registry office) brought the matter before the Amtsgericht (Local Court) Niebüll, which decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Art.234 EC: “In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Art.12 EC and having regard to the right to the freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down by Art. 18 EC, is the provision on the conflict of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nationality alone?” To put it in different words, the question is whether the freedom of movement (Art.18 EC) guarantees the recognition of a surname which has been determined validly in another Member State. This question has been answered affirmative by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion, but has now – due to the lack of jurisdiction – been left open by the ECJ.

The case has to be read in the context of Konstantinidis (ECJ, 30 March 1993, C-168/91) and Avello (ECJ, 2 October 2003, C-148/02) and concerns the – highly discussed – principle of mutual recognition and is therefore of high interest.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Veronika Gaertner https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Veronika Gaertner2006-08-16 22:49:022006-11-25 15:22:32Recognition of a Surname and Validity

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Web-Sites, Establishment and Private International Law Link to: Web-Sites, Establishment and Private International Law Web-Sites, Establishment and Private International Law Link to: 25 years IPRax – Conference in Regensburg Link to: 25 years IPRax – Conference in Regensburg 25 years IPRax – Conference in Regensburg
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top