The case of S.V. v. The Kingdom of the Netherlands. Opinions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women dated February 17, 2025. Message No. 162/2020.
In 2020, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The author claimed that the State party had violated her rights under article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by imposing a heavy financial burden on her as a condition for returning her birth name. The Committee found a violation of the Convention.
Legal positions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: discrimination against women means "any distinction, exclusion or restriction based on gender that is aimed at weakening or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, regardless of their marital status, on the basis of equal rights of men and women, human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural, civic or any other field." This definition includes indirect discrimination, which occurs when seemingly neutral legal norms or rules that are not intended to discriminate lead to consequences that disproportionately affect the enjoyment of women's rights. The Committee notes that indirect discrimination against women occurs when laws, policies, programmes or practices appear to be neutral as far as men and women are concerned, but in practice have discriminatory consequences for women, as the adoption of a seemingly neutral measure does not eliminate previously established factors. inequalities. The Committee also notes that indirect discrimination can exacerbate existing inequalities due to the refusal to recognize structural and historical patterns of discrimination, as well as the inequality of rights and opportunities between women and men (paragraph 9.4 of the Opinion).
The author has demonstrated through statistical data that has not been disputed by the State party that between 2014 and 2018, 100 per cent of applicants requesting a family name change after a divorce were women, indicating the gender-differentiated impact of current legislation.
The Committee notes that the realization of women's rights should be achieved through the promotion of de facto or fundamental equality, using all appropriate means. It is also noted that different treatment in law and practice is justified in situations that are otherwise similar in order to avoid indirect discrimination (paragraph 9.6 of the Opinions).
Assessment of the factual circumstances of the case by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: it is noted that an exception to the requirement to pay a fee for requesting a name change already exists for a specific category of people, namely those who have been victims of certain crimes. The Committee has drawn attention to the fact that the State party has not explained why, in order to eliminate indirect discrimination against women, an exception cannot be made for women applying for a name change after a divorce (the return of the name given at birth) (paragraph 9.6 of the Opinion).
The State party denied the author equal treatment with men and indirectly discriminated against her by obliging the author to pay a fee, which is very high for a person in her socio-economic situation and which constituted an obstacle for the author to complete the process of returning the birth name after the divorce (paragraph 9.7 of the Opinion).
Conclusions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The State party failed to substantiate that the fee charged to divorced women for changing their name was necessary and proportionate. The Committee also concluded that the requirement to pay the fee imposed a de facto discriminatory burden on women who wanted to regain their birth name after a divorce. The State party has failed to comply with its obligations under article 16, paragraph 1 (g), of the Convention.