Conditions and Process of the Name Change Lawsuit and the Recent Constitutional Court Decision

With the latest amendments within the scope of the Annulment Decision of the Constitutional Court dated 25/12/2025, Docket No. 2025/120 and Decision No. 2025/270) (15/04/2026

There are psychiatric experts who state that a name has an impact on a person's character as well as their moral and spiritual development. In this regard, the importance of a name in a person's life is undeniable. However, an action for a name change may arise in situations such as one of the spouses acting independently in naming the child and the given name not being desired by the other spouse; one spouse giving the child the name of a person with whom they had a romantic relationship in the past without the other spouse's knowledge; the person being dissatisfied with their name because it contains a ridiculous meaning; or the name being incompatible with their gender. Since a name involves an aspect concerning public order, these requests are not evaluated by the Directorates of Population without a court judgment regarding this matter. For a name change, it is necessary to file a name change lawsuit before the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) along with justifiable requests. In this article, practical information regarding the name change lawsuit along with the recent Constitutional Court decision on the subject will be shared.

In the recent past, it was possible to request a name change through an administrative application. With Provisional Article 8 added to the Population Services Law by Law No. 7039, the opportunity to request a name change via a written application to the directorate of population for a two-year period starting from 03/11/2017 was introduced. However, these requests had to be based on grounds such as the name being contrary to general morality, being a ridiculous name, or containing a spelling error. This practice was continued with Provisional Article 11 added to the Population Services Law on 24/12/2019, allowing requests for the alteration of the name over the e-government (e-devlet) system for a period of 3 years due to reasons such as the name being ridiculous, contrary to general morality, or having a spelling error. As of 24/12/2022, this practice has also expired. Therefore, in the subsequent period, requests regarding a name change will not be possible without a court decision.

The court will reach a conclusion by examining the justifiability of the reasons put forward in the name change request. In these cases, the principle of ex officio investigation (re'sen araştırma ilkesi) is applied rather than the principle of presentation of facts by the parties, which otherwise dominates civil procedure. Therefore, the burden of proof regarding the alleged facts is of great importance. It is possible for lawsuits filed on the basis of untrue reasons to be dismissed accordingly. The most frequently encountered situation in practice is that the individual is not known in society by the name registered in the civil registry. In this case, the court will evaluate witness testimonies, and if deemed necessary, will collect information about the person from their social environment through law enforcement and verify the conformity of these statements with the truth.

Furthermore, the name change request must pursue a legitimate aim. Namely, the request for a name change must not be based on reasons such as evading a criminal investigation or avoiding debt execution. In this regard, the court conducts necessary inquiries ex officio by consulting the Police Department to ascertain whether there is an outstanding search or arrest warrant against the individual. If it is determined during the background check that the name change request harbors an illegitimate purpose, the dismissal of the lawsuit may also be in question.

If the person whose name change is requested is a minor, the spouse exercising the right of custody (velayet) can file this lawsuit on behalf of the child. However, while the marital union continues, it is not possible for one of the spouses to file this lawsuit for the minor under custody without the consent of the other. Since the consent of the other spouse is required, the lawsuit is notified to them; if consent is not granted, the lawsuit may be dismissed due to the necessity of jointly exercising parental authority. In the event a name change for a child is requested, the court may also solicit the child's opinion, subject to the suitability of the child's developmental stage.

This lawsuit shall be filed in the court of the individual's place of domicile, with the local Directorate of Population designated as the defendant.

As the lawsuit must be grounded on a justified reason, it is highly probable that grounds considered abstract, such as "I do not like my name, I do not feel my name reflects me" or "I have many enemies, I am requesting a name change to evade my enemies," will be rejected by the court. In this respect, it is imperative that the process is conducted under the counsel of an attorney to achieve the desired outcome.

Let us examine the Constitutional Court's annulment decision, which stipulates a series of changes in the supplementary procedures of the court process, such as the registration of the court decree regarding the name change into the civil registry and its publication.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION

Matters pertaining to name changes were regulated under Article 27 of the Turkish Civil Code, stipulating that in instances where the court grants the lawsuit, the rendered judgment must be registered in the civil registry and published. However, by virtue of the Constitutional Court decision rendered on 25/12/2025 and published in the Official Gazette on 01/04/2026, the 2nd sentence of TCC Art. 27/2 concerning the publication of the name change decree was annulled once again, following the prior amendment dated 14/11/2024.

The provision of TCC Art. 27/2 annulled by the Constitutional Court reads as follows: “The name change is registered in the civil registry and published on the publication portal of the Press Advertisement Institution. This publication shall include; the court rendering the judgment, the date of the decision, the docket and decision numbers of the file, as well as the place of civil registration, date of birth, mother's and father's name, previous name and surname, and the new name and surname granted by the court decision of the person whose name was changed.”

This provision was previously the subject of the Constitutional Court's decision dated 22/2/2024 and numbered E.2023/34, K.2024/60, and was subsequently revised following said decision. In the Constitutional Court's decision numbered E.2023/34, K.2024/60, the publication of the name change was also deemed unconstitutional and annulled. In that decision, it was reasoned that since the scope of the information to be included in the publication was not clear and explicit, the regulation violated the principle of legality. Following this annulment decision, the amendment dated 14/11/2024 explicitly regulated what data would be included in the publication. According to this regulation, the court and decree information pertaining to the name change, the person's place of civil registration, date of birth, parents' names, previous name and surname, and the new name granted by the court decision were mandated to be published. This regulation was subsequently brought before the Constitutional Court via an objection application on the grounds that "the published data constitutes personal data, and making personal data public indefinitely by the Press Advertisement Institution results in a disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, constituting a violation of the privacy of private life enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution."

Indeed, the provision of TCC Art. 27/2, the annulment of which is sought, disproportionately restricts the right to request the protection of personal data. The fact that this publication harbors numerous items of personal data—such as mother's and father's name, place and date of birth, and place of civil registration—coupled with the failure to specify the duration of publication, demonstrates that the restriction imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms contravenes the principle of proportionality and constitutes a violation under Art. 13 of the Constitution. Furthermore, setting aside its violation of the principle of proportionality, the contested article's failure to grant the judge discretionary power regarding the publication of the name change in cases where a legitimate interest exists in the concrete case also amounts to a violation of the privacy of private life within the context of the right to request the protection of personal data (Const. Art. 20). If an individual requests a name change for reasons such as evading a concrete threat to their life, publishing the decision regarding this matter contradicts the very outcome the regulation aims to achieve. The legislator is bound by fundamental Constitutional principles, and it is possible to restrict fundamental rights and freedoms only in accordance with the reasons for restriction set forth in the Constitution, without violating the essence of the right.

The Constitutional Court included the following evaluations as justification for its annulment decision:

23. Although there is a public interest in announcing name change decisions via publication to protect the interests of third parties who might suffer harm, the indefinite publication of the said decision may cause disproportionate consequences on the interests of the individual whose personal data becomes known to the general public.

24. On the other hand, the rule foresees the categorical publication of all name change decisions; it does not grant the judge discretionary authority regarding whether to publish the said decisions under certain circumstances. In other words, the judge rendering the name change decision has no opportunity to make an assessment on this matter by taking into account the reasons for the name change in light of the specific characteristics of the concrete case. As a matter of fact, in certain situations, there may be a paramount legal interest in not publishing name change decisions. Therefore, mandating the publication of all name change decisions without granting the judge discretionary power in this regard is of a nature that may produce severe consequences for individuals.

25. In this respect, it has been concluded that the reasonable balance between the public interest arising from the legitimate aim pursued by the rule and the interests of individuals has been disrupted; thereby, the rule imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to request the protection of personal data.

26. For the reasons explained, the rule is contrary to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution. It must be annulled.

It has been decreed that this decision of the Constitutional Court will enter into force 9 months after its publication, and as of 01/01/2027, name change lawsuits are expected to take legal effect and produce consequences solely upon the amendment of the civil registry following a notification to the Directorate of Population, without undergoing publication. However, the possibility of new statutory regulations being enacted during this interim period is always present.

REFERENCES

- CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Decision dated 25/11/2025, Docket No. 2025/120, Decision No. 2025/270

- Constitutional Court Decision dated 22/2/2024, Docket No. 2023/34, Decision No. 2024/60

- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721

- Population Services Law No. 5490

- https://www.nevzattarhan.com/isminiz-kisiliginizi-olusturuyor.html

- Constitutional Court (AYM)