Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU - C 101/13 / Judgment

U v Stadt Karlsruhe
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
COURT (Fourth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
02/10/2014
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2249
  • CJEU - C 101/13 / Judgment
    Key facts of the case:
     
    (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Part 1 — Minimum security standards for passports and travel documents issued by the Member States — Machine readable passport — Inclusion of the birth name on the personal data page of the passport — Name to appear in a form not liable to give rise to confusion)
     
    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
     
    53. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 
     
    On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
    1. The Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 must be interpreted as requiring the machine readable personal data page of passports issued by the Member States to satisfy all the compulsory specifications provided for by Part 1 of Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 
    2. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as not precluding that State from being entitled nevertheless to enter the birth name either as a primary identifier in Field 06 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport or as a secondary identifier in Field 07 of that page or in a single field composed of Fields 06 and 07. 
    3. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with the provisions of International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, Section IV, point 8.6, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as precluding that State from being entitled to enter the birth name as an optional item of personal date in Field 13 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport.
    4. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that State is required to state clearly in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

     

    43. By Question 4, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, read in conjunction with ICAO Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that Member State is required to state in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.

    44. In so far as the objective recalled in paragraph 41 above entails that the information in the various fields of the machine readable personal data page of a passport must be easily and effectively verifiable by the authorities of those States, the form in which the various components of the name of the holder appear must be free of any ambiguity and, therefore, of any risk of confusion.

    45. Consequently, where a Member State, in a legal context such as that set out by the referring court in its questions, decides to insert the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, it is required to state clearly in the captions of those fields that the birth name is entered there.

    46. Furthermore, having regard to ICAO Document 9303, Part 1, Section IV, point 8.4, that caption must be drafted in the official language of that State, if necessary accompanied by a translation, in italics, into one of the languages designated in that provision.

    47. Therefore, those requirements are not satisfied where, in a passport, the birth name of the holder entered there is indicated by means of an abbreviation which is, moreover, not translated into one of the languages required.

    48. Such an interpretation is also supported by the requirements linked to the right of a person to protection of his identity and private life, of which respect for his name is a constituent element, as affirmed in Article 7 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn, C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 66).

    49. In that regard, although, with a view to attaining the objectives of Regulation No 2252/2004, a State has the option of adding to the name of the passport holder, as defined in its national law on civil status, other elements, in particular the birth name, the fact remains that the way in which that option is exercised must observe that individual’s right to protection of his private life. Thus, in order for that right to be observed, the name of the holder must be clearly distinguished from those additional elements, such clarification moreover in no way preventing the objectives of Regulation No 2252/2004 from being achieved.

    50. It is not disputed that, where the name of a person appears incorrectly or ambiguously in documents issued by a State in order to prove his identity, this is liable to cause serious inconvenience for that person both in his professional and in his private life in so far as it may give rise to doubts as to his real identity, the authenticity of the passport or the veracity of the information contained in it (see, to that effect, judgments in Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 23, and Sayn-Wittgenstein, C‑208/09, EU:C:2010:806, paragraph 69).

    51. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to Question 4 is that the Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, read in conjunction with ICAO Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that State is required to state clearly in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.