Judgment of the Northern Netherlands District Court dated March 3, 2021

The petitioner, who has used the first name “Jaimy” throughout their life, finds it inconvenient that their official first name, Johannes, deviates from this. Furthermore, the petitioner changed their last name in 2017 due to significant memories from the past. They no longer wanted to be confronted with their original last name. As the application for the last name change was approved by royal decree, they managed to seek more closure for their significant past. Now they are confronted with the fact that their current first names are still somehow connected to that past.

For the petitioner, the desire to officially change their name to “Henri” serves a dual purpose: firstly, it aims to make a fresh start in their life, and secondly, it is essential for the petitioner not to be continually confronted with confusion about their first name. The latter frequently occurs: whenever possible, the petitioner uses the nickname “Jaimy,” but they often find themselves having to explain that their official name is Johannes. The petitioner believes that there are effectively two different identities because they know no other name than “Jaimy.” When they need to handle official matters, it seems like it’s someone else whenever the name Johannes comes up. The petitioner wants to eliminate all confusion for the present and the future and go through life using only the nickname “Jaimy.”

Given the aforementioned reasons, the petitioner believes they have a significant interest in this request for a first name change and deems the name change, which is legally required, appropriate. The court finds that, considering the petitioner’s motivation, it has been adequately demonstrated. The request is granted (in writing), meaning there was no need to schedule an oral hearing in this case.