Judgment of the Amsterdam District Court on March 10, 2021

The petitioners have two children who have experienced discrimination from a young age. They observed that their eldest daughter did not receive the right school advice and, as a result, was placed in a lower educational track. Despite attending VWO (pre-university education), she was not eligible for a specific follow-up program, while her classmates were. The petitioners also had the impression, whether justified or not, that their daughter experienced (name) discrimination, as she initially received a VMBO-Kader (lower-level high school) advice, which was later changed to HAVO (higher-level high school) upon the insistence of the petitioners.

Addition of a Second Given Name

To prevent future problems related to potential discrimination, the petitioners wish for their children to have a second, Dutch given name. In recent years, the petitioners, whether rightly or not, have had the impression that their eldest daughter’s name is hindering her in the job market. In the past, she often visited companies in person to inquire about available internship positions and received hardly any negative responses. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she is now forced to apply online, and she has applied to about 30 companies in the past year, receiving no responses to any of her applications. The pandemic may be a contributing factor, but the petitioners believe that their daughter’s name played a significant role because she was asked to submit an application in the first place. This situation has made their eldest child feel insecure. She knows her capabilities, and she had never experienced name-related issues in the past.

Given the experiences of their eldest child, the petitioners wish to spare the minors from potential future discrimination. Adopting a second Dutch given name is expected to alleviate a significant portion of the hindrance. It will also boost the minors’ self-confidence because they will no longer expect their names to result in a disadvantage.

The court rules that the petitioners have a sufficiently substantial interest in the request and approves it.