| Applicant name | MTS AND MJS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | PORTUGAL |
| Application no. | 39848/19 |
| Date | 10/12/2024 |
| Judges | Lado Chanturia , president , Jolien Schukking, Faris Vehabović, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Raduletu, András Jakab |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | relational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Procedural requirments |
| Facts of the case | elying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the first applicant submits, on behalf of the second applicant, that the civil proceedings in which she was barred from acting and J. was appointed as her guardian infringed her right to a fair trial, and criticises, in this regard, the domestic courts for not having heard the second applicant and for not having taken into consideration the choice she had allegedly made, by notarial deed, concerning her guardian. Still on behalf of the second applicant, she further considers that the appointment of J. as the second applicant’s guardian infringed their right to respect for their private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. As the Court is responsible for the legal characterisation of the facts of the case, it considers that the complaints raised by the first applicant on behalf of the second applicant are suitable for examination under Article 8 of the Convention alone, in its substantive and procedural aspects. The relevant parts of that provision of the Convention in the present case read as follows : |
| Analysis | In view of the foregoing findings, the Court concludes that the decision-making process leading to the injunction and the appointment of the second applicant’s guardian did not meet the requirements of the Convention, as it was not surrounded by sufficient safeguards to protect and safeguard the applicant’s interests and to prevent abuse. Furthermore, the subsequent procedure conducted for the purpose of a formal adjustment to the new regime for accompanied adults did not remedy the deficiencies identified. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 or 8+14 |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts : to the second applicant, EUR 5,200 (five thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that sum, in respect of non-pecuniary damage ; to the first applicant, insofar as it acted in the interests of the second applicant, EUR 2,230 (two thousand two hundred and thirty euros), plus any amount that may be chargeable as tax on that sum, for costs and expenses ; |
| Documents | Judgment |