Fundamental Rights Section Par. 1 of the Trade Ordinance and thus do have a position as participating parties to that extent. Since the neighbours’ rights to a hearing in simplified proceedings is not safeguarded in their full scope by Art. 359b of the Trade Ordinance, Art. 364a of the Civil Code must be interpreted in alignment with the Constitution such that a business facility authorised in simplified proceedings according to Art. 359b of the Trade Ordinance is not an officially authorised business facility in the sense of Art. 364a of the Civil Code. 2.7 Right to respect for private lives (Art. 8 of the EHRC) 2.7.1 Protecting family life in cases of anonymous adoptions (VA BD/1216-SV/03) Ms. M. agreed to an anonymous adoption regarding her child born in November 2002. Nevertheless, the Public Servants Insurance Commission sent her medical treatment vouchers in September 2003 on which the names of the adoptive parents appeared. For the AOB, there is no doubt whatsoever that the constitutionally guaranteed right of the child and his/her adoptive parents to respect for their private and family lives was infringed by the occurrence described above. According to Art. 8 of the EHRC, a child’s biological parents may not learn the identity of the adoptive parents in a case of anonymous adoption, [even if] due to the mistaken dispatch of medical treatment vouchers. 2.7.2 Right to retain a surname (VA BD/1-AA/03) Mr. N.N. had dual citizenship when he was born in 1985. According to the determinant legal situation, he would have had to be given the surname of his wedded father. However, Mr. N.N. had borne a differently formulated double name since his birth (the name consisting of the first part of his father’s surname and his mother’s surname) which, as it appeared on his birth certificate and in other documents such as school grade reports, was considered to be his legally correct surname. When, in May 2002, the Austrian Consulate General in Munich rejected his application for a passport bearing the double name he had been using since birth, Mr. N.N. turned to the AOB for assistance. Since complainant surname (which he had been using since birth) had been confirmed as legal many times over, a forced “correction” would constitute a grave infringement of Art. 8 of the EHRC. Since the principle of interpretation in alignment with the Constitution 23