Constitutional Court finds no violation in not allowing Kurdish child given name containing 'w'

"We are in our country. We are not foreigners." (Photo: MA/File)

Click to read the article in Turkish / Kurdish

The Constitutional Court has found no rights violations in not allowing a Kurdish family to give their child the name "Ciwan" because it includes the letter w, which does not exist in the Turkish alphabet, along with q and x, two other letters that exist in Kurdish.

Abdullah Yılmaz named his child born in 2014 Ciwan, which means "young" in Kurdish. However, the Çiğli Civil Registry Directorate in İzmir refused to issue an ID card for the child, citing the Law on Adoption and Application of Turkish Letters.

The directorate issued a notification for the child's name to be changed to "Civan" on December 4, 2014. On December 15, prosecutors filed a case with the Karşıyaka 1st Civil Court of First Instance, which eventually ruled that the child's name should be registered as "Civan."

Yılmaz appealed the verdict, but the 8th Legal chamber of the Court of Cassation concluded on November 5, 2017, that the verdict was in line with the law and procedures.

He then filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court, stating that his "right to respect for private and family life" and, in relation to this, the principle of equality of the Constitution, were violated.

He also cited the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) verdict in the application of Tahir Canan against Turkey and stated that he had been prevented from giving his child a Kurdish name in order for the prevention of the survival of the Kurdish culture.

"No discrimination"

Examining the application in terms of compliance with the values of a democratic society, the Constitutional Court concluded that the change in the letter was made in accordance with the phonetic structure and that there was no information that there was a serious obstacle in the Kurdish culture against the use of the name "Civan."

The verdict was also in accordance with the laws, said the top court.

Examining the allegation of the prohibition of discrimination, the Constitutional Court said this could only be discussed if a person demonstrates which fundamental right of them was violated on which grounds.

The court rejected the application in a unanimous vote. (EMK/VK)