CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .sA9E99AE7 { width:197.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION             CASE OF NIKOLYAN v. ARMENIA   (Application no. 74438/14)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   3 October 2019       FINAL   03/01/2020     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Nikolyan v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 74438/14) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Mr Gurgen Nikolyan (“the applicant”), on 13 November 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms   Haykuhi   Harutyunyan and Ms   A.   Melkonyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan, and Ms   Hasmik   Harutyunyan, a non-practising lawyer. The Armenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   G.   Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr   Y.   Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that (1) he had been denied access to court in the determination of his divorce and eviction claim, and for restoration of his legal capacity, (2) the proceedings concerning deprivation of his legal capacity had not been fair and (3) his deprivation of legal capacity breached his right to private life. 4.     On 17 November 2016 the complaints concerning the denial of access to court, the alleged lack of adversarial procedure and the applicant’s deprivation of legal capacity were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Yerevan. A.     The applicant’s divorce and eviction claim and the proceedings concerning deprivation of his legal capacity 6.     The applicant lived in a flat with his wife of 15 years and their son and the latter’s wife and child. 7.     On 25 April 2012 the applicant instituted proceedings at the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) seeking to divorce his wife and evict her from his flat. The applicant submitted that their co-habitation had become unbearable, as in the past 12 years there had been conflicts in their relationship, as a result of which they had already de facto separated. The applicant submitted that the flat in question was not their common property and by law he was its sole owner. 8.     On 4 July 2012 the applicant’s wife instituted “special” court proceedings ( հատուկ վարույթ ) under Article 168 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), seeking to declare the applicant incapable. She submitted that the applicant had become unrecognisable: he constantly initiated arguments, made accusations and threatened her, other family members and in general people around him. He had recently threatened to take revenge and to throw all of them out onto the street. He had first applied to the police to have her and others’ registrations at that address cancelled and then lodged a claim to divorce and evict her which, she claimed, were signs of a mental disorder. The applicant’s wife explained that she had no choice but to apply to a court because the applicant’s behaviour posed a threat to the entire family, as his next step would be to evict the other family members and it was necessary to prevent that. Attached to her application was a statement signed by four of their neighbours, dated 28 June 2012, according to which the applicant had begun to behave strangely over the last few years, constantly seeking conflict with people around him and addressing absurd accusations at his wife and other family members. The neighbours added that they believed that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder. 9.     On the same date the District Court ordered the applicant’s examination by a panel of psychiatric experts, asking them to determine whether the applicant was able to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. The District Court added that such examination was necessary because the evidence submitted by the applicant’s wife might be insufficient to grant her application. 10.     On 25 September 2012 the panel of psychiatric experts issued their opinion after having examined the applicant and other evidence. The opinion, a two-page document, first summarised the statements made by his wife, neighbours and a local police officer, according to which in recent years the applicant had become suspicious, intolerant and argumentative, constantly seeking conflict with his wife and others around him, addressing absurd accusations at his wife, physically abusing her and accusing her of infidelity and of swindling him. It then analysed the applicant’s behaviour during an interview conducted with him. Based on the above, the panel concluded that the applicant suffered from “delusional disorder”, a mental illness whose symptoms had reached a degree which deprived the applicant of the ability to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. 11.     On 14 November 2012 the applicant’s son also instituted “special” court proceedings under Article 168 of the CCP, seeking to declare the applicant incapable on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder and required special care. 12.     On 22 November 2012 the District Court decided to stay the divorce and eviction proceedings until final resolution of the two applications that had been initiated in respect of the applicant after he had filed his divorce and eviction claim. 13.     On 13 December 2012 the District Court examined the application lodged by the applicant’s wife in the applicant’s presence and decided to reject it, noting the conflict of interest between the applicant and his wife and finding that the expert opinion of 25   September 2012 was necessary, but insufficient evidence for depriving the applicant of his legal capacity. The District Court concluded that the applicant’s wife’s application did not pursue a legitimate aim; hence depriving the applicant of his legal capacity in such circumstances would entail serious and irreversible consequences for him, making him a potential victim of a breach of the Convention. 14.     On 9 January 2013 the applicant’s wife lodged an appeal against that judgment. 15 .     On 8 February 2013 the District Court, in a different composition, granted the application lodged by the applicant’s son and declared the applicant incapable. The District Court relied on the psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012 and concluded that the applicant was unable to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. The applicant was not notified of the application lodged by his son or of the hearing at the District Court. 16.     No appeal was lodged against that judgment so it became final on 11   March 2013. 17.     On 20 March 2013 the local body of guardianship and trusteeship appointed the applicant’s son as his guardian on the basis of the judgment of 8 February 2013. 18.     On 28 March 2013 the Civil Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of 13 December 2012 and remitted the case upon the applicant’s wife’s appeal. The Civil Court of Appeal noted that at the time when the District Court examined the applicant’s wife’s application the final judgment of 8   February 2013 declaring the applicant incapable had not existed. Therefore she had not been able to present that judgment, which was key evidence for the resolution of the case, to the District Court for reasons beyond her control. The Civil Court of Appeal concluded that this reason alone was sufficient to reverse the judgment of 13 December 2012. 19.     On 31 May 2013 the applicant, having learned about the judgment of 8 February 2013, lodged an appeal against it on the ground that the District Court had declared him incapable without notifying him of the hearing. 20 .     On 11 July 2013 the Civil Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of 8   February 2013 and ordered a new examination on the ground that the applicant had not been notified of the hearing of the case concerning his legal capacity. 21.     On 30 August 2013 the District Court decided to involve the applicant as a third party to the proceedings. 22.     On 3 October 2013 the District Court held a preparatory hearing in the applicant’s presence and decided to join the applications lodged by the applicant’s wife and son and examine them together. 23.     On 31 October 2013 the District Court held another preparatory hearing. According to the record of the hearing, a representative of the local body of guardianship and trusteeship, R.S., represented the applicant, who was absent from the hearing. It is not clear from the record whether any issues were discussed at this hearing 24 .     On 18 November 2013 the District Court held a trial hearing with the participation of the applicant, his wife and R.S. After R.S. endorsed the applications lodged by the applicant’s wife and son relying on the psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012, the presiding judge invited the applicant to state his position in that respect. The applicant denied that he was suffering from a serious mental disorder and argued that bribery was involved in the process of his psychiatric examination. He also stated that his relationship with his wife had been unbearable, since she had swindled him and frequently ridiculed him in front of others and that, as a result, he wanted to divorce her. The applicant also urged the judge to read “Article 48 of the European law” and “Article 32 of the Armenian law”. The presiding judge asked the applicant’s wife to explain the reasons why she sought to deprive the applicant of his legal capacity. The applicant’s wife firstly confirmed that they had had a conflictual relationship over the past 12   years and one of the reasons for this was that the applicant was overly jealous and suspicious. In addition, she stated that the applicant had threatened to stab himself with a knife. She explained that when the applicant filed the divorce and eviction claim, she had felt compelled to lodge an application seeking to declare him incapable. 25 .     On 29 November 2013, in the applicant’s presence, the District Court granted the joint application of his wife and son and declared the applicant incapable on the basis of Article 31 of the Civil Code (CC). Relying on the psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012, the District Court held that, as a result of his mental disorder, the applicant was unable to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. 26.     The applicant lodged an appeal in which he argued that it had not been established that he was unable to understand the meaning of his actions. The District Court’s interpretation and application of Article 31 of the CC unduly restricted the scope of his civil rights. It was questionable whether the stated illness, namely “delusional disorder”, in fact deprived him of the ability to understand the meaning of his actions, as the contested judgment did not state any example or situation in which his alleged incapability was displayed. In addition, the District Court had failed to order a new medical assessment of his mental health and relied on the outdated opinion of 25   September 2012. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention and the Court’s judgment in the case of Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05, ECHR 2008), the applicant argued that the failure of the domestic courts to scrutinise closely the degree of his illness was a breach of his right to private life. The applicant also submitted that the motivation of the applicant’s wife to deprive him of legal capacity was to deprive him of his flat. Finally, the applicant also expressed discontent with regard to his procedural status of a “third party”, as he could not be a mere “third party” in a case concerning deprivation of his legal capacity. 27.     On 7 March 2014 the Civil Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. It found that the psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012 was sufficient evidence to declare the applicant incapable. The Court of Appeal stated that there was no evidence to rebut the findings made in that expert opinion or to suggest that the applicant had recovered. 28.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 29 .     On 10 April 2014 the applicant wrote to the local body of guardianship and trusteeship asking that his opinion be taken into account when appointing his guardian. 30.     On 30 April 2014 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit. 31 .     On 19 June 2014 the applicant’s son filed a request with the District Court seeking to withdraw the applicant’s divorce and eviction claim on the grounds that the applicant had been declared incapable. He also informed the District Court that he had been appointed as the applicant’s guardian by a decision of the local body of guardianship and trusteeship of 20 March 2013. 32.     On 14 August 2014 the District Court decided to resume the divorce and eviction proceedings. 33.     On 16 September 2014 the body of guardianship and trusteeship endorsed its decision of 20 March 2013 appointing the applicant’s son as his guardian, relying this time on the judgment of 29 November 2013. 34 .     On 1 October 2014 the District Court granted the request of the applicant’s son and terminated the divorce and eviction proceedings on the ground that the domestic law authorised a guardian to withdraw the claim of a person declared incapable, on the latter’s behalf. It also stated that the applicant’s son was appointed as guardian with the applicant’s consent and at his wish. B.     Contestation of guardianship 35.     On 19 February 2015 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Court seeking to quash the decision of the body of guardianship and trusteeship of 20 March 2013 and to appoint a new guardian. 36.     On 25 February 2015 the Administrative Court declared the applicant’s application inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had been declared incapable, as a result of which he lacked standing to lodge such a claim. 37.     The applicant appealed against that decision. 38.     On 16 April 2015 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 39.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 40.     On 28 September 2016 the Court of Cassation granted the applicant’s appeal on points of law and quashed the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation reasoned its decision to admit the applicant’s appeal for examination on the ground that it was necessary to clarify whether or not a person declared incapable had the right to contest the decision appointing his guardian. As regards the merits, the Court of Cassation took note of the applicant’s submissions on conflict of interest and regular disputes between him and his son. It found that, notwithstanding the duty of the body of guardianship and trusteeship under Article 37 § 3 of the CC to hear the opinion of the applicant and consider his wish when appointing his guardian, it had apparently failed to do so, even though the applicant had requested a hearing. It concluded that, in such circumstances, requiring the applicant to seek judicial protection as regards the appointment of his guardian exclusively through his guardian was, at least, ineffective in practice. As a person affected by the decision on the appointment of his guardian, the applicant should have enjoyed the right to contest such decision before a court since the impossibility to do so would violate the applicant’s right of access to court. 41.     On 14 November 2016 the Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Administrative Court of 25 February 2015 and remitted the case for new examination. 42.     At the time of final exchange of observations between the parties, the proceedings in question were still pending before the Administrative Court and their outcome is unknown. C.     The applicant’s attempts to restore his legal capacity 43.     On 23 May 2014 the applicant filed a letter with the Minister of Health, seeking a new psychiatric examination to determine whether or not he was able to understand the meaning of his actions and control them, because almost two years had passed since the only psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012. 44.     On 2 June 2014 the Ministry of Health replied that it had no authority to order such an examination. 45.     On 22 August 2014 the applicant applied to a psychiatric hospital seeking a psychiatric expert examination. The hospital apparently never responded to this request. 46.     On the same date the applicant applied to the District Court, stating that his state of health required a review because almost two years had passed since the psychiatric expert opinion of 25 September 2012 which had been the sole ground for declaring him incapable, and requesting the court to assign a new psychiatric expert examination to determine whether or not his mental health allowed him to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. 47.     On 28 August 2014 the District Court replied to the applicant that, under Article 173 § 1 of the CCP, it was competent to declare a person who has recovered legally capable on the basis of a relevant psychiatric expert opinion, upon an application lodged by the guardian, a family member or the administration of a psychiatric institution. It had no authority to request a new psychiatric expert examination in view of the final judgment of 29   November 2013. 48.     On 7 April 2015 the Constitutional Court, upon an application lodged by the Ombudsman, declared Article 173 § 1 of the CCP unconstitutional, in so far as it deprived persons seeking to restore their legal capacity of the possibility to avail themselves personally of the right to be heard by a court and to participate in the proceedings. 49.     On 11 May 2015 the applicant, represented by lawyers, instituted proceedings in the District Court seeking to be declared legally capable. The District Court admitted the applicant’s application and granted him procedural status as a third party. 50.     On 29 June 2015 the District Court ordered the applicant’s examination by a psychiatric expert panel in order to determine whether he was able to understand the meaning of his actions or to control them. 51.     On 29 October 2015 the panel concluded that the applicant could be suffering from “delusional disorder”, “jealousy delirium” and “lightly expressed age-related personality change”. It stated that an inpatient examination was necessary, as it was unable to make a precise diagnosis of the applicant’s condition and answer the District Court’s questions. 52.     The applicant’s lawyer lodged a request with the District Court seeking an outpatient psychiatric examination, arguing that an inpatient examination would adversely affect the applicant’s mental and physical health. 53.     On 1 August 2016 the District Court ordered the applicant’s outpatient psychiatric examination and asked the examination panel to answer the following questions: “Whether or not [the applicant] suffers from any kind of mental disorder and whether or not he is able to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them”. 54.     On 6 December 2016 the psychiatric expert panel, having examined the applicant, delivered its report as follows: “[the applicant] suffers from a mental disorder, i.e. “intellectual retardation of mixed origin”, which is expressed in grave disturbance of memory and intellect, disturbances of the functions of thought, analysis, cognition, speech, perception and production. The abovementioned [conditions] reached a degree which deprived [the applicant] of the ability to understand the meaning of his actions or to control them. Hence, under the current conditions, it is advised to deprive [the applicant] of his legal capacity”. 55.     At the time of exchange of observations between the parties, the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     The Civil Code (1999) 56.     Article 31 provides that a person who, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to understand the meaning of his or her actions or to control them may be declared incapable by a court, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the CCP. Transactions on behalf of a person declared incapable are handled by his or her guardian. A court restores a person’s legal capacity, if the grounds on the basis of which he was declared incapable cease to exist. Guardianship is terminated on the basis of such judgment. 57.     Article 32 provides that legal capacity of a person may be restricted by a court, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the CCP, if he or she puts his family into a difficult financial situation as a result of alcohol or drug abuse or gambling. Trusteeship is assigned in respect of such persons. 58.     Article 33 §§ 1 and 2 provides that guardianship and trusteeship are designated for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of incapable persons or those whose legal capacity has been restricted. Guardians and trustees defend the rights and interests of their wards in their relations with everyone, including before the courts, without a special authorisation. 59.     Article 37 §§ 1 and 3 provides that a guardian is appointed by the local body of guardianship and trusteeship. The appointment of a guardian may be contested before a court by persons concerned. When appointing a guardian, the nature of the relationship between the potential guardian and the ward and, if possible, the wishes of the ward are taken into account, among other things. B.     Code of Civil Procedure (1999-2018) 1.     Procedure for declaring a person incapable 60.     Section 2 of Part 3 of the Code, entitled “Special proceedings”, includes Chapter 29 (Articles 168-173) which regulates the procedure for declaring a person incapable. 61.     Article 168 § 1 provides that an application for a person to be declared incapable may be lodged by his or her family members, a body of guardianship and trusteeship or the administration of a psychiatric institution. 62.     Article 169 § 1 provides that an application for a person to be declared incapable must indicate the circumstances demonstrating a person’s mental disorder and as a result of which he or she is unable to understand the meaning of his or her actions or to control them. 63.     Article 170 provides that, if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person suffers from a mental disorder, the judge orders a psychiatric expert examination to determine the state of mental health of the person in question. 64.     Article 171 § 1 provides that an application for a person to be declared incapable must be examined in the presence of a representative of a body of guardianship and trusteeship. The person concerned may be invited to the hearing, if his state of health permits. 65.     Article 172 § 1 provides that the body of guardianship and trusteeship appoints a guardian on the basis of a judgment declaring a person incapable. 66.     Article 173 § 1 provides that, in cases prescribed by the CC, the court declares a person who has recovered capable, on the basis of a relevant psychiatric expert opinion, upon an application lodged by the guardian, a family member or the administration of a psychiatric institution. 2.     Other relevant provisions 67.     Article 27 provides that persons participating in the proceedings include (1) the parties; (2) third parties; and (3) applicants in cases envisaged by Part 3 of the Code. 68.     Article 35 § 2 provides that third parties who have no claims of their own in respect of the dispute enjoy the same rights as the parties, except the right to change the grounds or subject of a claim, to increase or decrease the amount of a claim, to withdraw a claim, to accept a claim or enter into a friendly settlement, and to demand compulsory enforcement of a judicial decision. 69.     Article 43 § 1 provides that the rights and legitimate interests of persons declared incapable are defended before the courts by their parents (or foster parents), guardians or trustees. 70.     Article 105 provides that the court must suspend the proceedings if, inter alia , it is impossible to examine the case until final resolution of another constitutional, civil, criminal or administrative case, or if the individual participating in the case has been declared incapable. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS A.     Council of Europe 71 .     On 23 February 1999 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation No.   R   (99)   4 on “Principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults”. For the relevant parts of the Recommendation see Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, § 73, ECHR 2012). Other relevant parts not cited in that judgment read as follows: Principle 8 – Paramountcy of interests and welfare of the person concerned “1.     In establishing or implementing a measure of protection for an incapable adult the past and present wishes and feelings of the adult should be ascertained so far as possible, and should be taken into account and given due respect. 2.     This principle implies, in particular, that the wishes of the adult as to the choice of any person to represent or assist him or her should be taken into account and, as far as possible, given due respect.” Principle 12 – Investigation and assessment “1.     There should be adequate procedures for the investigation and assessment of the adult’s personal faculties. 2.     No measure of protection which restricts the legal capacity of an incapable adult should be taken unless [...] an up-to-date report from at least one suitably qualified expert has been submitted.” Principle 16 – Adequate control “There should be adequate control of the operation of measures of protection and of the acts and decisions of representatives.” 72.     On the same date the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No.   R   (99)   4. Paragraph 47 provides the following explanation of Principle   8: “This principle implies among other things that the choice of any person to represent or assist an incapable adult should be governed by the suitability of that person to safeguard and promote the adult’s interests and welfare. In some family situations there are quite acute conflicts of interest and, while the invaluable and irreplaceable role of family members must be fully recognised and valued, the law must also be aware of the dangers which exist in certain situations of family conflict”. B.     United Nations 73 .     In December 2006 the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereafter “the CRPD”) was adopted. It entered into force internationally in May 2008. By the end of September 2016, 44 out of the 47 Council of Europe member States had ratified the Convention. Armenia ratified the Convention on 22 September 2010. Article 12 of the CRPD, entitled “Equal recognition before the law”, provides as follows: “1.     States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. 2.     States Parties shall recognise that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life. 3.     States Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity. 4.     States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests. 5.     Subject to the provisions of this article, States Parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own financial affairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, and shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not arbitrarily deprived of their property.” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 74.     The applicant complained (a) that, after having been divested of legal capacity, he had had no standing before the domestic courts either to pursue his divorce and eviction claim or to request the restoration of his legal capacity; and (b) that he had not had a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning deprivation of his legal capacity, in breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal....” A.     Access to court 1.     Admissibility 75.     The Court notes that the applicant complained specifically about two restrictions on his access to court after he had been declared incapable: firstly, the inability to pursue his divorce and eviction claim and, secondly, the lack of possibility to apply to a court to have his legal capacity restored. 76.     The Government raised a non-exhaustion objection regarding the second complaint, arguing that it was premature because, following the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 April 2015, the applicant was granted access to court to seek restoration of his legal capacity and those proceedings were still pending. 77.     The applicant submitted that his complaint about the lack of access to court for restoration of his legal capacity was limited to the situation before the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 April 2015, specifically when in August 2014 he had tried to initiate a new medical examination and a review of his situation by the domestic court but was not able to do so because of the restriction imposed on his access to court by Article 173 of the CCP. The proceedings which he instituted after the Constitutional Court’s decision were indeed still pending but were not part of his application lodged with the Court. Thus, he could still claim to be a victim in respect of denial of access to court in August 2014. 78.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint concerns the lack of possibility to have access to court to request restoration of his legal capacity prior to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 April 2015. He was indeed granted access following that decision, but he does not complain about the fairness of those proceedings or the merits of that dispute. The fact that those proceedings are still pending is therefore irrelevant for the applicant’s access-to-court complaint and no question of non-exhaustion or prematurity of his complaint arises. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection in this respect. 79.     On the other hand, the Court cannot overlook the fact that, taking into account that the applicant was eventually granted access to court to seek restoration of his legal capacity, a question arises as to whether the applicant can still claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. In this respect, the Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of “victim” status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Scordino v.   Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). 80.     In the present case, the Court notes that by virtue of the restriction contained in Article 173 § 1 of the CCP, the applicant did not have standing to initiate court proceedings with a view to reviewing and restoring his legal capacity. This situation changed when, on 7 April 2015, the Constitutional Court declared Article 173 § 1 unconstitutional and invalid in so far as it failed to ensure for persons declared incapable the right to initiate personally court proceedings, putting an end to the situation complained of by the applicant in his application and allowing him to institute court proceedings in May 2015. However, in the Court’s view, the Constitutional Court’s decision, which was moreover taken upon an application lodged by the Ombudsman and was not in any way related to the applicant’s particular case, did not constitute either an implicit acknowledgement of a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court or redress for the period during which the applicant was deprived of this right (see, mutatis mutandis , Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 83, ECHR 2012). 81.     The Court therefore concludes that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of an alleged violation of his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 82.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints concerning lack of access to court are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The parties’ submissions (i)     The applicant 83.     The applicant submitted that, after he had been declared incapable, he had no standing before the domestic courts either to pursue his divorce and eviction claim or to apply to a court to have his legal incapacity reviewed, in breach of his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. 84.     As regards the divorce and eviction proceedings, the applicant submitted that he had initiated those proceedings before his wife and son applied to a court to have him declared incapable. He argued that the sole purpose of their action was to avoid the divorce and eviction, and once he was declared incapable he no longer had the possibility to present personally his divorce and eviction case in court or to request an examination of that claim after the proceedings had been stayed since, in accordance with Article 31 and 33 of the CC, he could act before the courts only through his guardian. The claim had eventually been abandoned not by him but by his son, with whom he had a conflictual relationship and regular disputes and who, in so doing, had acted against his will and interests. The withdrawal of the claim had therefore not been in his best interest and pursued the sole aim of avoiding divorce and eviction. Thus, he had been deprived of the possibility to pursue his divorce and to protect his right to private life. 85.     As regards restoration of legal capacity, the applicant submitted that in August 2014 he had applied to a court with a request to appoint a new medical examination in order to review the decision declaring him incapable. The court, however, had refused to examine that request with reference to Article 173 of the CCP, which prevented his access to court to seek restoration of his legal capacity. Furthermore, the Armenian system did not provide for any possibility for a review of legal incapacity at reasonable intervals. Referring to the judgments in the cases of Stanev (cited above) and Nataliya Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine (no. 49069/11, 30 May 2013), the applicant argued that he should have enjoyed the right of access to court to seek restoration of his legal capacity, which had been violated by the refusal to examine his request in 2014. Such lack of judicial review had seriously affected many aspects of his life and had not pursued any legitimate aim. (ii)     The Government 86.     The Government denied that the applicant’s right of access to court had been violated. 87.     As regards the divorce and eviction proceedings, the Government submitted that at the time when the court had decided to stay those proceedings the psychiatric expert opinion had already been issued in respect of the applicant and the domestic court had been obliged by law to stay those proceedings, since the determination of the question of the applicant’s legal capacity was decisive for the examination of the divorce and eviction claim in terms of assessing the applicant’s ability to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them. After the applicant had been deprived of his legal capacity, his divorce and eviction claim had been withdrawn by his son, who had been appointed as his guardian in compliance with the requirements of domestic law and at the applicant’s wish. The withdrawal of the claim had pursued a legitimate aim because the applicant’s son, as his guardian, had been obliged to prevent the applicant from taking actions that could lead to severe consequences for others. Furthermore, the decision to terminate the divorce and eviction proceedings had not affected the applicant’s right of access to court because the applicant had had the possibility to re-submit his claim if he were to succeed in restoring his legal capacity or if a new guardian were appointed or his son so wished. 88.     As regards restoration of legal capacity the Government, referring to the proceedings which the applicant instituted after the Constitutional Court’s decision of 7 April 2015, submitted that the applicant had enjoyed full access to court in those proceedings. He had been able to avail himself fully of all the rights enjoyed by a party to the proceedings, including to be present, to have a lawyer and to lodge requests. As regards his request lodged in August 2014, the District Court lacked the authority to order a new medical examination due to the fact that the case regarding the applicant’s legal capacity had already been concluded by a final judgment. In any event, the request in question had not been a proper application lodged with a court and in order to complain about lack of access to court the applicant should at least have tried to lodge such an application first. (b)     The Court’s assessment (i)     General principles 89.     The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. This “right to a court”, of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her civil rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Stanev , cited above, § 229, and Nataliya Mikhaylenko , cited above, § 30). 90.     The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access “by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals”. In laying down such regulation, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Whilst the final decision as to observance of the Convention’s requirements rests with the Court, it is no part of the Court’s function to substitute for the assessment of the national authorities any other assessment of what might be the best policy in this field. Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Stanev , cited above, § 230, and Nataliya Mikhaylenko , cited above, § 31). 91.     The Court has acknowledged in the past that restrictions on the procedural rights of a person who has been deprived of legal capacity may be justified for that person’s own protection, the protection of the interests of others and the proper administration of justice (see Stanev , cited above, §   241). It is for the State to decide how the procedural rights of a person who has been deprived of legal capacity should be ensured at domestic level. In this context, States should be able to take restrictive measures in order to achieve the above-mentioned aims (see Nataliya Mikhaylenko , cited above, § 36). (ii)     Application of the above principles in the present case 92.     The Court notes at the outset that in the present case none of the parties disputed the applicability of Article 6 to the proceedings in question and the Court has no reason to hold otherwise (see Stanev , cited above, §   233, and Nataliya Mikhaylenko , cited above, § 33, as regards, in particular, proceedings for restoration of legal capacity). The Court will address the two instances of restrictions on the applicant’s access to court separately. (α)     Access to court in divorce and eviction proceedings 93.     The Court notes that the applicant’s divorce and eviction claim lodged on 25 April 2012 was never examined by the domestic courts, as a result of the decision to declare him legally incapable and the eventual withdrawal of that claim by the applicant’s son, who acted as his guardian. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 86, 29   November 2016). 94.     The Court observes that, once declared incapable, the applicant no longer had legal capacity to act before the courts to pursue his divorce and eviction claim and, in accordance with Article 43 § 1 of the CCP and Article   33 § 2 of the CC, could do so only through his guardian. Thus, domestic law imposed a blanket ban on the applicant’s access to court in all spheres of life. Furthermore, as will be discussed below under Article 8 of the Convention, the domestic legal system did not differentiate between different degrees of incapacity for persons suffering from a mental disorder and did not provide for measures of protection tailored to the individual needs of the person concerned. Thus, such questions as to whether the applicant could understand the meaning of divorce or eviction and whether he could act autonomously in that sphere of life, including defending his rights before the courts, without causing disruption to the proper administration of justice or harm to himself or others, were never addressed and answered. Therefore, it is questionable whether such a blanket ban on the applicant’s access to court, which resulted in his inability to pursue his divorce and eviction claim, pursued any legitimate aim. The Court, however, does not find it necessary to answer that question conclusively since, even assuming that it did, the restriction on the applicant’s access to court was, in any event, unjustified in the particular circumstances of the case for the following reasons. 95 .     The Court notes that Article 37 § 3 of the CC required the body of guardianship and trusteeship, which was responsible for the appointment of the applicant’s guardian, to take into account the nature of the relationship between the applicant and his potential guardian and, if possible, the applicant’s wish. Furthermore, the applicant himself applied to that body and requested that his opinion be taken into account when appointing his guardian (see paragraph 29 above). However, as it follows from the decision of the Court of Cassation of 28 September 2016, the body of guardianship and trusteeship failed to hear the applicant and appointed his son as his guardian, despite the fact that the applicant app