In the state Duma criticized the idea to equate the letter “e” and “e” in the documents

The letter “e” is an integral part of the Russian alphabet — the status changes in the documents could seriously hamper the fight against crime and searching for missing people. This opinion was expressed by first Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on state construction and legislation Mikhail Emelyanov RIA Novosti on Friday, August 18.

So the MP responded to the initiative of the Deputy of Legislative Assembly of Leningrad region Vladimir Petrov, who offered to do the equivalent of the letter “e” and “e” in personal data.

“Do not support — said Emelyanov, answering the question of whether he supports the idea. — I would like names and identification would be very careful because it is linked with many problems, including combating crime, and search for relatives of the missing persons. So still in the transcription of names must be orderly”.

According to the Agency, with a proposal Petrov made earlier on Friday. “Confusion in the various spelling of proper names — surnames, names, patronymics, place of birth of citizens — owners of documents is a serious defect of the instruments, fixing the legal facts. Examples of such writing is the different spelling of the name “Natalie” and Natalie”, middle initial “G.” and G.” and the use of family names, names and patronymic names, geographical names letter “e” instead “e” and Vice versa”, — stated in the explanatory Memorandum to the Federal bill, at the disposal of RIA Novosti.

Various writing such information of the owner of the documents is not a distortion and should not be the basis for restrictions or obstructions in the realization of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

In mid-March of 2016 Ministry of education and science recommended that all agencies use the letter “e” in official documents. Former head of Department Dmitry Livanov also said that the owners of personal data with the letter “e” must control the spelling of their names in official documents to avoid confusion.

Comments

comments