Personal names of minorities before the ECtHR
The use of personal names is a specific border area of minority language use, which, as part of personal identity, is basically rooted in the private sphere (as such it falls within the scope of Article 8 ECHR), yet in the specific cases the ECtHRemphasized its aspect related to the State language, since the spelling of surnames and forenames „cannot be dissociated from the linguistic policy conducted by the State” (Bulgakov v. Ukraine). And since State language policy is practically a forbidden area for the Court, it has rejected the relevant complaints. In its opinion, a national law which ordered the passport entry of the German surname of the Latvian applicant after her marriage according to the spelling rules of the Latvian language, with a phonetic transcription, serves a legitimate purpose (this is how Mentzen became Mencena in the Mentzen v. Latviacase). It does not violate the ECHR either that the name of the applicant of Russian nationality, born in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, was indicated by the Ukrainian authorities in his official documents in Ukrainian transliteration: in the form of Dmytro Volodymyrovych, instead of Dmitriy Vladimirovich (Bulgakov v. Ukraine). Furthermore, the Court did not object to the fact that the French authorities did not allow the parents of Catalan nationality to give their child a first name according to the Catalan spelling, and contrary to their express request, the boy’s name was entered in the birth certificate with a short ʻi’ (Marti instead of Martí) (Baylac-Ferrer et Suarez v. France).