Malgožata Runevič-Vardy and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v. Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija and others, Case C-391/09, CJUE (Second Section), 12 May 2011

Refusal by a Member State to change the surname of a married couple in the civil status records according to the spelling rules of the home Member State. There is no ethnic discrimination.
 

art. 21 TFEU
art. 18 TFEU
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin

1. National rules which provide that a person’s surnames and forenames may be entered on the certificates of civil status of that State only in a form which complies with the rules governing the spelling of the official national language relate to a situation which does not come within the scope of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.Although, in the light of the objective of that directive and the nature of the rights which it seeks to safeguard, its ambit may not be defined restrictively, it cannot be held that such national rules come within the concept of a ‘service’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive.

 2. Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authorities of a Member State from refusing, pursuant to national rules which provide that a person’s surname and forenames may be entered on the certificates of civil status of that State only in a form which complies with the rules governing the spelling of the official national language, to amend the joint surname of a married couple who are citizens of the Union, as it appears on the certificates of civil status issued by the Member State of origin of one of those citizens, in a form which complies with the spelling rules of that latter State, on condition that that refusal does not give rise, for those Union citizens, to serious inconvenience at administrative, professional and private levels, this being a matter which it is for the national court to decide. If that proves to be the case, it is also for that court to determine whether the refusal to make the amendment is necessary for the protection of the interests which the national rules are designed to secure and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.