Lithuanian Supreme Court Rejects Cassation Appeal Over Spelling of Polish Name

On 13 February 2025, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has issued its final decision in the high-profile case concerning the spelling of Professor Jarosław Wołkonowski’s name and surname. Over nearly three years, the case attracted significant attention and sparked extensive debate both nationally and internationally. It was examined through multiple levels of the judiciary, culminating in cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court.

(You can read more about the entire process at different stages in our next articles on proceedings before the district court, regional court and the Supreme Court.)

Following the unfavorable outcome at the national level, Professor Wołkonowski, with the support of the European Foundation of Human Rights (EFHR), will now take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The case is expected to draw further international attention as it touches upon broader issues concerning minority rights, linguistic freedoms, and compliance with European human rights standards.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Lithuania held that the applicable national regulations governing the spelling of names and surnames in identity documents are consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with international standards. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the Lithuanian language as a core element of national identity and state integrity. It further ruled that these regulations do not violate the principle of equality among citizens, arguing that distinctions regarding the use of diacritical marks are based on objective legal grounds rather than on arbitrary treatment of national minorities.

The European Foundation of Human Rights (EFHR) has pointed out, however, that although the Court referred to international human rights standards, its interpretation of these norms failed to fully take into account the essence of the right of national minorities to preserve their cultural and linguistic identity. In particular, the Court overlooked the fact that preventing individuals from using the full, original spelling of their surname can lead to administrative and professional difficulties, especially in the context of international mobility and academic activities.

In the context of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and other international bodies, the European Foundation of Human Rights (EFHR) emphasizes that regulations concerning the spelling of surnames should strike a balance between the public interest and individual rights. Member States of the European Union are obliged to ensure that language policies do not lead to disproportionate restrictions on the exercise of fundamental civil rights.

Furthermore, EFHR draws attention to the significance of the position of the Lithuanian Language Commission, which was cited in the context of the reasoning behind the judgment. The Supreme Court accepted that the Commission’s opinion had been taken into account during the legislative process, however, it did not address the fact that the Commission itself allows for the possibility of legislative changes that would enable the use of diacritical marks in identity documents.

In light of the above, the European Foundation of Human Rights is of the opinion that the protection of the Lithuanian language should not lead to restrictions on the right to retain the original spelling of surnames, especially when it affects the personal and professional identity of citizens belonging to national minorities.

This case opens a broader discussion on the balance between minority rights and state language policy, as well as on the potential for further legislative reforms regarding the protection of national minority rights in Lithuania. As the legal situation develops, it will be important to monitor the government’s actions and society’s reaction to these regulations. EFHR remains committed to further analysis of this issue and to actions aimed at strengthening the protection of national minority rights in light of international human rights standards. Details of the judgment and the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be found below.

Supreme Court Judgment – Analysis

The applicant, supported by the European Foundation of Human Rights (EFHR), raised before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania key issues related to the protection of the rights of national minorities, the principle of equality before the law, and the respect for Lithuania’s international obligations. These arguments included:

1. failure to comply with rights arising from the national legal order, violation of the principle of equality, and the division of Lithuanian citizens into three unequal groups;
2. failure to comply with the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in civil case No. e3K-3-122-1075/2021;
3. failure to comply with rights arising from the international obligations of the European Union and Lithuania to ensure that members of national minorities have the right to use their mother tongue;
4. failure to comply with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) interpretation of the principle of fair balance between competing interests of the public and private spheres of life;
5. failure to assess the evidence concerning the diacritical spelling of the applicant’s surname in the public sphere;
6. failure to obtain the opinion of the Lithuanian Language Commission.

Ad 1 – Regarding national regulations, the principle of equality, and the division of Lithuanian citizens into groups

The Supreme Court noted that the basic requirements concerning the spelling of first names and surnames in identity documents are clearly defined in the applicable regulations, and changes to the rules were introduced in response to the need to protect the Lithuanian language as the state language (these changes were retroactive). In its judgment, the Court stated that the legislature has the right to regulate the spelling of first names and surnames as part of the state’s language policy. The Court found no grounds to conclude that the legal regulations violate the principles of equality and also deemed them consistent with the Constitution of Lithuania. It was emphasized that the Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 28 December 2023, confirmed the compliance of the regulations concerning the spelling of first names and surnames in identity documents with the constitutional principle of equality.

Regarding the division of citizens into groups, it was stated that the applicant cannot justify his position by comparing himself to individuals, whose documents were issued in other countries under different legal regulations or to situations where the surname was acquired through marriage to a foreigner. It was pointed out that there is a different basis for the protection of the law – the applicant’s claim did not stem from the need to preserve family unity or freedom of movement, but from the desire to emphasize affiliation with the Polish nation and to preserve the original spelling of ancestors’ surnames.

Ad 2 – Regarding the non-compliance with the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in civil case No. e3K-3-122-1075/2021:

The Supreme Court stated that the cassation case No. e3K-3-122-1075/2021, invoked by the applicant, concerned a different factual situation and was adjudicated based on earlier regulations that did not specify the rules for the spelling of surnames in personal documents. In that case, the key argument was the right to family unity and freedom of movement in the context of a surname acquired through marriage to a foreigner. The Court at that time allowed the use of a surname with a diacritical mark, recognizing that its absence could lead to significant administrative and legal difficulties for the applicant. It concluded that the then-existing regulations contained a legal gap that needed to be filled by analogy.

The current regulations clearly define the permissible diacritical marks in Lithuanian citizens’ documents, eliminating the previous legal ambiguity, thus, according to the Court, the current regulation expressly prohibits the use of diacritical marks outside the Lithuanian alphabet. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant was unjustly treating the earlier judgment as a precedent because it was issued under a different legal and factual context.

Ad 3 – regarding the failure to ensure rights arising from Lithuania’s and the European Union’s international obligations:

The Court noted that the ECtHR has repeatedly emphasized that although the spelling of first and last names is part of the right to private and family life, it cannot be separated from a state’s language policy. States have a wide margin of discretion in regulating the official language, including the spelling of names in identity documents. It was emphasized that the lack of a uniform standard in Europe, as well as historical and cultural conditions, means that decisions in this matter remain within the discretion of national legislators. The ECtHR’s case law confirms that states may require the use of a specific alphabet in official documents, as long as they respect the fundamental rights protected by the Convention. For example, in the case of Kemal Taşkın and Others v. Turkey (2010), it was found that the requirement to spell surnames exclusively in the official Turkish alphabet did not violate Article 8 of the Convention. Similarly, in the case of Ismayilzade v. Azerbaijan (2024), the refusal to register a chosen child’s name was not considered a violation of the right to private life. The Supreme Court also held that Articles 2 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities merely generally outline minority rights but leave states freedom in their implementation.

Thus, according to the Supreme Court, international regulations allow states to define the rules for the spelling of first and last names in identity documents. There is no clear obligation to use alphabets or diacritical marks other than those employed in the official language. The Court argued that too much freedom regarding the spelling of surnames could lead to legal uncertainty.

Ad 4 – regarding the failure to respect the ECtHR’s interpretation of the principle of fair balance between competing interests of the public and private spheres of life:

The Supreme Court pointed out that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the Lithuanian language as a crucial element of the public interest, guaranteeing national identity, state integrity, and its institutions. The current regulations concerning the spelling of first and last names in identity documents seek to maintain a balance between protecting the state language and respecting citizens’ personal identities, allowing the use of certain Latin alphabet letters such as “w” and abandoning Lithuanian masculine endings.

In the complainant’s case, it was found that his rights to the authentic spelling of his surname had not been excessively restricted, as the difference between the original and the adapted spelling is minimal and does not affect his identity. Although the inability to use the letter “ł” may lead to minor phonetic differences, it does not constitute a significant obstacle in everyday life or identification. Therefore, his arguments concerning a violation of the principle of fair balance between public and private interests were not upheld.

Ad 5 – regarding the failure to assess evidence of the complainant’s surname’s diacritical spelling in public space by the court:

Jarosław Wołkonowski argued that for nearly two years after the issuance of the court ruling, he used the legally recognized spelling of his surname. As a scholar, he published more than 50 articles in Polish using the diacritical “ł” spelling, which confirms its widespread usage in this form. Referring to these arguments, it was noted that Wołkonowski himself did not claim to experience particular difficulties in everyday life. On the contrary – according to the court, he could freely use the original spelling of his surname in academic activities, in some state information systems, and in public space. Therefore, the court concluded that his right to private life was not disproportionately violated. The Supreme Court held that the inability to use the letter “ł” in official documents did not constitute a significant restriction for the complainant.

In the ORCID system, where scientists are identified by a unique number, the spelling of the surname without “ł” leads to situations where Wołkonowski’s publications are not correctly attributed to his body of work. The lack of uniform spelling creates real professional problems, which, however, the court did not take into account in its assessment.

Ad 6 – regarding the reference to the opinion of the Lithuanian Language Commission:

The Supreme Court found that the opinion of the Lithuanian Language Commission was duly taken into account when drafting the regulations concerning the spelling of first and last names. It was emphasized that according to this opinion, the introduction of diacritical marks into personal documents could violate the principle of protecting the Lithuanian language, since civil status acts should be drawn up in the state language (the Constitutional Court simultaneously allowed for the possibility of introducing diacritical spelling in legislation, meaning that the protection of the Lithuanian language should not automatically exclude such regulation). However, the Court found the arguments of the cassation complaint concerning the obligation to refer to the Commission’s opinion to be unfounded.

Translated by Klaudia Korona within the framework of a traineeship programme of the EFHR