6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İstanbul. 7.  The applicant is a lawyer practising in İstanbul. 8.  Following her marriage to Hüseyin Ataman on 14 July 1995, the applicant, whose maiden name was “Ersoy” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband's last name pursuant to Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code. 9.  On 17 December 1996 the applicant filed an action for rectification of her name before the Ankara Civil Court. She asked to keep her maiden name and requested that her maiden name be adopted as the family name, as also agreed by her husband. The applicant claimed that Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code contravened Articles 10 and 12 of the Turkish Constitution. 10.  On 14 May 1997 Law no. 4248 amended Article 153 of the Civil Code and provided married women with the option of combining their maiden name with that of their husband's surname. 11.  On 3 June 1997 the Ankara Civil Court held that Article 153 § 1 did not allow a married couple, even if they agreed, to bear the maiden name of the woman as the family name. It found that such a provision was contrary to Articles 12 and 17 of the Constitution. Accordingly, considering that the claims of the applicant were well-founded, the court decided to suspend the proceedings and transferred the case-file to the Constitutional Court for examination of the compatibility of Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code with the relevant provisions of the Constitution. 12.  On 21 October 1997 the Constitutional Court decided, unanimously, to limit the examination of constitutionality to the first sentence of Article 153 of the Civil Code which states: “Married women shall bear their husband's name”. 13.  On 29 September 1998 the Constitutional Court held by eight votes to three that Article 153 of the Civil Code was compatible with Articles 10, 12 and 17 of the Constitution.
In its decision, the court held, inter alia, the following:
“The rule according to which married women bear their husband's name derives from certain social realities and is the result of the codification of certain customs that have formed over centuries in Turkish society. According to the reasoning behind family law, the purpose of the rule is to protect women, who are of a more delicate nature than men, to strengthen family bonds, to nurture the prosperity of the marriage, and to preclude bicephalous authority within the same family.
For the sake of protecting family unity, the legislature has recognised the primacy of the husband's name over the wife's. Considerations of public interest and policy have been decisive. Moreover, under the new provision women are now allowed to keep their maiden name in front of their surname (...).
Furthermore, the contention that this provision infringes Article 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits any discrimination on the ground of sex, is not well‑founded either. The principle of equality, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution, does not mean that everyone is subject to the same rules of law. The special characteristics of each person or each group of persons may reasonably justify the application of different rules of law (...)” 14.  The dissenting judges considered that Article 153 of the Civil Code interfered with the woman's right to protect and develop her material and spiritual entity and that it was incompatible with Article 17 of the Constitution. 15.  On 16 March 1999 the Ankara Civil Court adhered to the Constitutional Court's judgment and dismissed the case brought by the applicant. 16.  On 15 November 2002 the decision of the Constitutional Court was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey. 17.  In her post admissibility observations, the applicant informed the Court that she had divorced on 30 April 2003.