Raihman v. Latvia (Communication No. 1621/2007) was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2010 (UN Document CCPR/C/100/D/1621/2007).
Mr. Raihman, a Latvian national and member of Jewish and Russian-speaking minorities, was born in 1959. His name and surname were registered as "Леонид Райхман" by USSR authorities, and used until 1998, when he received a Latvian non-citizen's passport with the name and surname amended to "Leonīds Raihmans", with the ending -s required for most masculine names in Latvian.
In 2004, he applied to the State Language Centre to have his name and surname spelled as Leonid Raihman. The applications was rejected, as were the appeals before Latvian courts.
In 2007, Raihman has filed a complaint before HRC, being represented by Latvian Human Rights Committee co-chairman A. Dimitrovs.
HRC viewsedit
The Committee found that
the interference entailed for the author presents major inconveniences, which are not reasonable, given the fact that they are not proportionate to the objective sought. While the question of legislative policy, and the modalities to protect and promote official languages is best left to the appreciation of the State parties [..] the forceful addition of a declinable ending to a surname, which has been used in its original form for decades, and which modifies its phonic pronunciation, is an intrusive measure, which is not proportionate to the aim of protecting the official State language. Relying on the previous jurisprudence, where it held that the protection offered by article 17 encompassed the right to choose and change one's own name, the Committee considers that this protection a fortiori protects persons from being passively imposed a change of name by the State party. The Committee therefore considers that the State party's unilateral modification of the author's name on official documents is not reasonable, and thus amounted to arbitrary interference with his privacy, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant
— Human Rights Committee, Doc. CCPR/C/100/D/1621/2007 (para. 8.3.)
Therefore, the Committee did not consider it necessary, to evaluate the case under articles 26 (non-discrimination), 27 (minority rights) and 2 in conjunction with 17, to which Raihman had referred (para. 8.4.).
Two members of the HRC, Krister Thelin and Rafael Rivas Posada, submitted a dissent, seeing no violation of ICCPR in the case.
Aftermathedit
Mr. Raihman had applied for the court to review his case due to HRC views. The Supreme Court of Latvia decided that the views are a ground to review the case in the executive, in the specific case — in the State Language Centre.[1] Mr. Raihman has gone through court proceedings again; in 2017, the Supreme Court refused to record his name in documents without Latvian endings.[2]
In 2012, the government of Latvia has responded to the Committee that is "sees no need for an immediate action to amend the existing national regulation of writing personal names in official documents. At the same time, the Government will take into account the opinion of the Committee in the possible further discussions on that issue on national level".[3]
The views in Raihman v. Latvia case have been referenced by the UN Human Rights Committee in a later case of Bulgakov v. Ukraine.[4]
Referencesedit
^The Senate: violations established by the UN Commission on Human Rights in the case Raihman v. Latvia are to be eliminated in the State Language Centre Supreme Court press release, 16.06.2011
^Personvārda atveide atbilstoši latviešu valodas prasībām nav tiesību uz privāto dzīvi aizskārums 2017-10-05 at the Wayback Machine(in Latvian)
^Ministru kabineta pārstāvja starptautiskajās cilvēktiesību institūcijās dienesta informācija Nr.03/149-1513 Latvijas Vēstnesis(in Latvian)
^Views adopted by the Committee at its 106th session (15 October–2 November 2012) - Communication No. 1803/2008 para. 7.3
External linksedit
HRC views (if unavailable, can also be accessed at LHRC website)
December 04, 2023
raihman, latvia, communication, 1621, 2007, case, decided, united, nations, human, rights, committee, 2010, document, ccpr, 1621, 2007, contents, facts, proceedings, views, aftermath, references, external, linksfacts, proceedings, editmr, raihman, latvian, nat. Raihman v Latvia Communication No 1621 2007 was a case decided by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2010 UN Document CCPR C 100 D 1621 2007 Contents 1 Facts and proceedings 2 HRC views 3 Aftermath 4 References 5 External linksFacts and proceedings editMr Raihman a Latvian national and member of Jewish and Russian speaking minorities was born in 1959 His name and surname were registered as Leonid Rajhman by USSR authorities and used until 1998 when he received a Latvian non citizen s passport with the name and surname amended to Leonids Raihmans with the ending s required for most masculine names in Latvian In 2004 he applied to the State Language Centre to have his name and surname spelled as Leonid Raihman The applications was rejected as were the appeals before Latvian courts In 2007 Raihman has filed a complaint before HRC being represented by Latvian Human Rights Committee co chairman A Dimitrovs HRC views editThe Committee found thatthe interference entailed for the author presents major inconveniences which are not reasonable given the fact that they are not proportionate to the objective sought While the question of legislative policy and the modalities to protect and promote official languages is best left to the appreciation of the State parties the forceful addition of a declinable ending to a surname which has been used in its original form for decades and which modifies its phonic pronunciation is an intrusive measure which is not proportionate to the aim of protecting the official State language Relying on the previous jurisprudence where it held that the protection offered by article 17 encompassed the right to choose and change one s own name the Committee considers that this protection a fortiori protects persons from being passively imposed a change of name by the State party The Committee therefore considers that the State party s unilateral modification of the author s name on official documents is not reasonable and thus amounted to arbitrary interference with his privacy in violation of article 17 of the Covenant Human Rights Committee Doc CCPR C 100 D 1621 2007 para 8 3 Therefore the Committee did not consider it necessary to evaluate the case under articles 26 non discrimination 27 minority rights and 2 in conjunction with 17 to which Raihman had referred para 8 4 Two members of the HRC Krister Thelin and Rafael Rivas Posada submitted a dissent seeing no violation of ICCPR in the case Aftermath editMr Raihman had applied for the court to review his case due to HRC views The Supreme Court of Latvia decided that the views are a ground to review the case in the executive in the specific case in the State Language Centre 1 Mr Raihman has gone through court proceedings again in 2017 the Supreme Court refused to record his name in documents without Latvian endings 2 In 2012 the government of Latvia has responded to the Committee that is sees no need for an immediate action to amend the existing national regulation of writing personal names in official documents At the same time the Government will take into account the opinion of the Committee in the possible further discussions on that issue on national level 3 The views in Raihman v Latvia case have been referenced by the UN Human Rights Committee in a later case of Bulgakov v Ukraine 4 References edit The Senate violations established by the UN Commission on Human Rights in the case Raihman v Latvia are to be eliminated in the State Language Centre Supreme Court press release 16 06 2011 Personvarda atveide atbilstosi latviesu valodas prasibam nav tiesibu uz privato dzivi aizskarums Archived 2017 10 05 at the Wayback Machine in Latvian Ministru kabineta parstavja starptautiskajas cilvektiesibu institucijas dienesta informacija Nr 03 149 1513 Latvijas Vestnesis in Latvian Views adopted by the Committee at its 106th session 15 October 2 November 2012 Communication No 1803 2008 para 7 3External links editHRC views if unavailable can also be accessed at LHRC website Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Raihman v Latvia amp oldid 1131919158, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
