The Mandatory Patronymic in Ukraine
A draft of Ukraine's new Civil Code has retained the mandatory use of a patronymic, sparking debate among human rights advocates and legal experts. This places Ukraine at odds with the majority of European nations, where a patronymic is not a compulsory part of a person's legal name. The current law defines an individual's name as consisting of three parts: surname, given name, and patronymic.
The proposed Civil Code does not provide for the option to forego a patronymic. Article 28 of the Code explicitly states that a natural person's name comprises these three elements. This is further reinforced by Article 147 of the Family Code, which stipulates that a child's patronymic is derived from the father's first name. If paternity is not established, information about the father is recorded based on the mother's statement, as per Part 2 of Article 135 of the Family Code.
European Standards and Judicial Practice
Since 2021, Ukrainian law has allowed individuals to change their patronymic from age 16, or from age 14 with parental consent. However, this law does not permit the complete omission of a patronymic during initial registration, raising questions about an individual's freedom to shape their own identity. This legal framework is a legacy of Soviet-era naming conventions, which remain deeply embedded in administrative systems.
In contrast, the naming practices in most developed European countries, such as France, Germany, and the Czech Republic, do not require a patronymic. This highlights a key divergence between Ukrainian and European legal orders. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examines name structures through the lens of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy, the ECHR ruled that rigid naming rules can constitute a violation, casting doubt on the justification for similar mandatory norms in Ukraine.
Ukrainian court rulings also demonstrate a degree of formalism. In case No. 639/1488/24, the court automatically changed a child's patronymic to match the adoptive father's name, revealing gaps in the legislation and underscoring the need for its adaptation to modern human rights standards.
Thus, the issue of the mandatory patronymic in Ukraine remains pertinent, and its regulation requires thorough analysis considering European norms and human rights principles.
The debate over mandatory patronymics in Ukraine reflects the broader issue of human rights and personal freedom in choosing one's name.
Drawing on European experience, allowing the option to forgo a patronymic could be a significant step toward modernizing Ukrainian legislation. This issue demands further study and public discussion to find a balance between traditional values and contemporary human rights requirements.