Doktor U? The Cjeu Reconciles The Correct To A Bring Upward Amongst Passport Security

Steve Peers

Many people accept a fluid feel of their personal identity. But this is anathema from the perspective of constabulary enforcement bodies, who seek to ready private identity inwards companionship to ensure certainty well-nigh each mortal they are collecting data on.

The CJEU had to reconcile these 2 conflicting principles inwards final week’s judgment inwards U. This was ane of 4 carve upwards CJEU judgments that calendar week where the plaintiff was designated past times a missive of the alphabet exclusively (the others were E, Q too X). In my view, it’s long past times fourth dimension for the Court to borrow a skillful thought from journalism, too simply give the people inwards enquiry assumed names. That’s because it’s harder to empathise too recollect a instance which is designated past times letters only, peculiarly where the same letters are reused past times the Court inwards other cases inwards the same land (such every bit asylum).

In particular, it’s confusing to work an initial exclusively for the U case, because the whole point of the instance is the designation of names. In fact, nether High German constabulary Mr. U is besides entitled to work ‘Doktor’ every bit work of his name. This makes it difficult to resist the temptation to telephone vociferation upwards him ‘Doktor U’. So I won’t resist it at all.
  

The judgment

Doktor U had the nativity cite ‘E’, but his official surname is at ane time U. The High German regime placed inwards his passport that his cite was ‘Dr. U, GEB E’. The ‘GEB’ stands for the High German give-and-take ‘geboren’ (meaning ‘born’). In practice, this led to confusion well-nigh what his actual cite was. So he challenged the authorities’ conclusion inwards the High German courts, which asked the CJEU to interpret the EU’s passport safety Regulation too the European Union Charter of Rights.

According to the CJEU, offset of all the European Union legislation requires all passports to apply the recommendations of the ICAO on document security. This is an interesting instance of European Union constabulary importing international soft constabulary past times reference (on the implications of this for European Union external relations, encounter this week’s judgment inwards Germany v Council).

Secondly, the Court ruled that a Member State had flexibility to designate a person’s nativity cite every bit work of his cite on a passport, fifty-fifty though the ICAO rules refer to national law, too the relevant High German constabulary on fixing of names (as distinct from the constabulary on passports) does non include nativity names every bit work of a person’s name. The rationale hither was the involvement of document security, which favoured the work of a fixed chemical factor (the cite at birth).

Thirdly, the Court ruled that the nativity cite could non survive included inwards the optional department of the passport. Finally, interpreting the Charter, it ruled that the correct to a name, which forms work of the correct to a private life get inwards Article seven of the Charter, agency that whatever work of a nativity cite on a passport had to survive clearly indicated. The abbreviation ‘GEB’ was non translated, too hence could non survive comprehended past times the regime of other countries too was liable to Pb to practical complications for the passport holder.  

Comments

It mightiness survive difficult for unopen to Germans to acknowledge it, but their country’s enormous influence inwards the European Union political organization has non been accompanied past times whatever predominance of the High German language, either within or exterior the EU. So the insistence of a peculiar approach to inscribing names on passports, coupled amongst an absence of translation, volition inevitably Pb to complications for those High German citizens whose cite has changed since birth.

The CJEU goes unopen to way to addressing that job inwards this judgment, when it requires the High German regime to brand it clear to the non-German speakers who brand upwards most of the residue of the basis that Doktor U’s nativity cite is just that, too that he at ane time goes past times a novel name.  At to the lowest degree this volition trim back the confusion well-nigh his cite that the skillful Doktor experiences inwards practice.

But the Court could accept gone much further. Doktor U didn’t only desire to trim back confusion well-nigh his electrical flow name; he wanted to survive known exclusively past times his electrical flow identity. After all, his fictional namesake has non disclosed his Gallifreyan nativity cite inwards 50 years of shroud fourth dimension (or thousands of years inwards narrative time). And dissimilar that time-travelling Doctor, the existent Doktor U has presumably non regenerated his trunk many times over, amongst consequent complications for using his passport.

While the Court was correct to state that the European Union legislation requires the application of ICAO soft law, it did non acknowledge the nifty ambiguity inwards those rules. Indeed, it is striking that the Advocate-General’s opinion arrives at exactly the contrary interpretation of them. The objective of ensuring passport safety could nonetheless accept been achieved past times providing a precise tape of Doktor U’s current identity. And the Court would accept sure reached this conclusion if it had performed inwards this instance – every bit it ever ought to do – an assessment of whether the interference inwards Doktor U’s correct to his private life was proportionate too necessary.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9, chapter 26

Share this post