## Facts

- Juta Mentzen, a Latvian national, married a German citizen in Bonn in December 1998 and took the surname “Mentzen.”
- She requested a Latvian passport listing her surname as “Mentzen” without alteration.
- Latvian authorities issued a passport listing her surname on the main identity page as “Mencena,” reflecting Latvian orthography and a feminine ending; the original spelling “Mentzen” appeared only in a notes section.
- Mentzen contended that the Latvianized form was significantly different, risked confusion abroad, and burdened proof of identity and family relationship.
- Latvian law required personal names in official documents to be rendered in Latvian in accordance with Latvian literary language spelling rules and approximated to original pronunciation.
- After unsuccessful challenges in the administrative and ordinary courts (ending with rejection by the Supreme Court’s Cassation Division), Mentzen filed a constitutional complaint.
- The complaint challenged State Language Law Article 19 and Cabinet Regulation No. 295 as incompatible with the constitutional right to private life and the limits on restricting that right.

## Issues

1. Whether mandatory Latvian-language spelling of a person’s surname in official identity documents interferes with the right to private life protected by Article 96 of the Constitution.
2. If there is interference, whether it is prescribed by law and justified as proportionate under Article 116 in light of state interests in protecting the official language and maintaining clear, consistent public records.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint and upheld State Language Law Article 19 and Cabinet Regulation No. 295 as compatible with Articles 96 and 116.
- The Court treated surname spelling as within the sphere of private life but found the interference limited in intensity.
- The Court accepted protection of the Latvian language as a legitimate constitutional aim and emphasized the need for uniformity in official documentation.
- The Court found the orthographic modifications insufficient to negate identity or family linkage, particularly because the original spelling was preserved in the passport’s notes.
- The Court concluded the restriction was proportionate because it applied in a narrow setting (official documents) and did not bar private use of the original surname.

## Legal Principles

- A person’s name and its spelling may fall within constitutional protection of private life.
- The state may require names in official documents to conform to official-language rules when the restriction is prescribed by law and pursues legitimate public aims.
- Protection of the official language and administrative clarity in official records can justify limited restrictions on private-life interests.
- Proportionality turns on the intensity and scope of the interference, including whether the measure is confined to official documentation and whether the original name form remains available for identification.

## Conclusion

The court held that requiring a foreign surname to be spelled according to Latvian linguistic norms in passports is a limited interference with private life that is justified and proportionate to the legitimate aims of protecting the official language and ensuring consistent official records.


Mentzen Case, No. 2001-04-0103 (Latv. Const. Ct. Dec. 21, 2001)