Burghartz v Switzerland: ECHR 22 Feb 1994

It was sex discrimination to prevent a husband using his and his wife’s surnames, but not to prevent the wife doing the same. The use of name is a means of personal identity and of linking it to a family.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 14+8; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings


R. Ryssdal, P


Times 08-Apr-1994, [1994] ECHR 2, 16213/90, (1994) 18 EHRR 101


Worldlii, Bailii, HUDOC

Cited by:

CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78749