CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2616CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6A03D803 { width:29.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F3E65F5 { width:31.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9F4AAD0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:38.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2DF4CCA2 { margin-left:-6.29pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9EE819 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s499543FD { width:6.87pt; display:inline-block } .s46C79669 { width:202.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBA366A80 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0072bc } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN (Application no. 43564/17)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 P1 • Vote • Justified disenfranchisement of person with intellectual disability, based on thorough, individualised assessment by domestic courts • Free expression of the opinion of the people • Margin of appreciation for States • Systems disenfranchising persons with mental disabilities must apply only to those effectively unable to make a free and self-determined electoral choice, as in present case Art 14 (+ Art 3 P1) • Art 1 P12 • Discrimination • Justified difference in treatment based on mental capacity   STRASBOURG 11 May 2021   FINAL   11/08/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Caamaño Valle v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   Georges Ravarani,   María Elósegui,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   43564/17) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Spanish national, Ms Maria del Mar Caamaño Valle (“the applicant”), on 9 June 2017; the decision to give notice of the application to the Spanish Government (“the Government”); the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe who intervened as a third party; Having deliberated in private on 19 January and on 30 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the right to vote of the applicant’s daughter, placed under partial guardianship owing to her intellectual disability. The applicant relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   12. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in and lives in Santiago de Compostela. She is the mother of M., a mentally disabled young woman born in A Coruña (La Coruña) in 1996. The applicant was represented by Ms   L.   Gonzalez-Lagana Vicente, a lawyer practising in A Coruña. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr R.-A. León Cavero, State Counsel and head of the Human Rights Department at the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     In December 2013, given the fact that M., the applicant’s daughter, would soon turn 18, the applicant lodged a request with a judge of First-Instance Court No. 6 of Santiago de Compostela (“the First-Instance Judge”) that she be deprived of her legal capacity. The applicant requested that her legal guardianship over her daughter be extended, but specifically asked that her daughter not be deprived of her right to vote. 6.     On 2 September 2014, the First-Instance Judge decided that the applicant’s daughter should be placed under the extended partial legal guardianship of her mother and that, in the light of the evidence and the case file, M.’s right to vote should be revoked. 7.     In an extensively reasoned judgment, the First-Instance Judge held that, given the specific circumstances of the case, the applicant’s daughter was not capable of exercising her right to vote. Having examined the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (see paragraph 23 below) in the light of the Spanish legal system, the First-Instance Judge explained the difference between the CRPD’s general concept of disability and the Spanish legal institution of incapacitation ( incapacitación ), which is intended to guarantee the rights of disabled people. He also referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court (according to which the CRPD and the institution of incapacitation, as regulated under the Spanish legal system, are compatible); he furthermore stated that a person who has been declared incapacitated ( incapacitado ) in the course of judicial proceedings (and who is not able to manage himself or herself) cannot be compared to a person who suffers a disability but is capable of managing himself or herself. The First-Instance Judge indicated in particular that: “It is necessary to bring on this particular controversial aspect the most recent and consolidated scientific doctrine and jurisprudence, citing, inter alia , the recent Supreme Court judgment 341/2014, of 1 July 2014, which states that ... (as is clear from the New York Convention and as was maintained by Supreme Court judgment 421/2013 of 24 June) Article 29 of the CRPD guarantees to persons with disabilities all political rights, and the possibility to enjoy them, under equal conditions, and as a logical corollary thereto ... the right to vote ...; sections   3(1)(b) and 2 of Institutional Law 5/85 of 19 July 1985 on the General Electoral System states that those declared incapacitated by virtue of a final judicial decision shall be deprived of the right to vote, provided that the decision expressly declares the relevant person’s incapacity to exercise it, and that the judges or courts deciding on that person’s incapacity or on confinement proceedings expressly rule on that person’s incapacity to exercise his right to vote. The loss of the right to vote is not an automatic or necessary consequence of incapacity ... It is for the judge in charge of the case to analyse and assess the situation of the person under his consideration and to rule on the advisability of denying that person his right to exercise of this fundamental right, ... which is a rule and not the exception ...” 8.     The First-Instance Judge considered that in respect of the instant case, the limitations imposed on M. in respect of her right to vote were based neither on the requirement of a higher cognitive or intellectual capacity nor on M.’s lack of knowledge regarding her voting options (that is to say her choice of candidate or party) nor on any hypothetical irrationality in respect of such choices, but on the strict and objective establishment of her lack of capacity in respect of political affairs and electoral matters. The court’s medical expert and the First-Instance Judge had ascertained the notable – and at that time insuperable – deficiencies of M. (without, in accordance with section 761 of the Civil Procedural Law, prejudging any possible subsequent change in her capacity) in respect of her exercising an electoral choice. The First-Instance Judge acknowledged that depriving a person of her voting rights could not be an automatic consequence of a judicial declaration of legal incapacity and that decisions dealing with such situations had therefore to be extensively reasoned. He noted that the task at hand was not that of examining the knowledge of the applicant’s daughter about a specific political system, but to assess the circumstances of the case. The restriction of her right to vote was not justified by the fact that she hardly knew anything about the Spanish political system, but because she was highly influenceable and not aware of the consequences of any vote that she might cast. The First-Instance Judge emphasised in his judgment that such decisions were always subject to judicial review. 9.     In October 2014, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Regional Court ( Audiencia Provincial ) of A Coruña. She asked the court to expressly recognise her daughter’s right to vote, submitting that under Articles 12 and   29 of the CRPD, the right to vote of persons with disabilities was recognised and that States had to provide them with the support necessary for the full exercise of that right to be guaranteed. 10.     On 11 March 2015, the Regional Court of A Coruña dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Regional Court considered that a decision to deprive a person of his or her right to vote was legal and compatible with the CRPD, provided that that person’s capacity to exercise the right to vote had been subjected to individual review by a judicial body; it noted that the first-instance judgment had been sufficiently reasoned. The Regional Court emphasised that the intellectual ability of the applicant’s daughter was equivalent to that of child aged between six and eight. 11.     In April 2015, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. She argued that all citizens had the right to vote under Article 23 of the Spanish Constitution (taken in conjunction with Article   10   §   2 thereof, which provided that fundamental rights recognised under the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the international conventions ratified by Spain). Moreover, she considered it to be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination that disabled people were prevented from exercising the fundamental right to vote. 12.     On 17 March 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the decision of the Regional Court and ruling that the reasoning of the contested judgment had contained a thorough analysis of the case and had correctly balanced the interests at stake. 13.     On 28 April 2016 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal alleging a violation of Article 23 of the Spanish Constitution, defending her daughter’s right to vote. It was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 28 November 2016 (notified on the 22 December 2016). 14.     In its reasoned decision ( auto ), the Constitutional Court stated as follows: “... 2.     With regard to doubt about the constitutionality of sections 3(1)(b) and 2 of Institutional Law 5/1985 ... on the general electoral system (the LOREG) under Article   23 § 1 of the Spanish Constitution, the applicant assumes that this constitutional provision guarantees to all citizens the right of active suffrage, without any limitation or exception ... ... Sections 2 and 3 of the LOREG limit the ... right to vote to those who, besides holding Spanish nationality ..., have reached the minimum legal age, have been included in the electoral census, and are not affected by the circumstances provided by section   3 (including having been judicially deprived of the right to vote in incapacity proceedings or being confined owing to a psychiatric disorder). Thus, the constitutional model of universal suffrage is not per se incompatible with an individual being deprived of the right to vote for a reason legally provided for, especially when such deprivation is covered by the standard legal guarantees. 3.     On the basis of the considerations listed in the previous paragraph, the arguments employed in the appeal are insufficient to effectively question the constitutionality – owing to the infringement of Articles 23 §§ 1 and 14 of the Spanish Constitution – of the above-mentioned legal provisions (paragraphs (1)(b) and (2) of section 3 of the LOREG), which enable courts and tribunals to restrict the exercise of a person’s right to vote on the basis of that person’s legal incapacity – in particular, on the basis of the specific circumstances of each person and after the completion of the appropriate judicial procedure determining his or her incapacity (or the authorisation of his or her confinement on the basis of mental illness). With regard to the alleged interpretation of Article 23 of the Spanish Constitution in accordance with the CRPD – and, in particular, in accordance with Article 29 thereof – which was adopted in New York on 13 December 2006 and ratified by Spain ... on 9   April 2008 ..., it is necessary to take into account, first of all, the distinction between ‘disability’ (a) in the sense of the Convention – a very broad concept that includes any ‘long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment’ that may prevent any actual equality, and (b) ‘disability’ in the sense of the Spanish Civil Code (CC) – that is to say ‘persistent physical or mental illnesses or impairments that prevent the person from caring for himself/herself’ (Article   200   of the CC) with regard to his/her exercise of the right in question under section 3 of the LOREG. The latter deals with the ability of ... each person to cast a vote as a ‘free expression of the will of the elector’, which is also guaranteed by the CRPD (Article   29   (a)   (iii)), the purpose of which is ..., in line with the mandate specified by Article   9   §   2 of the Spanish Constitution: to remove obstacles that prevent or hinder free and secret voting without fear (Article   29   (a)   (ii) and (iii)) by persons with disabilities and to ensure that they are ‘assisted in voting by a person of their choice, ... where necessary and at their request’. ... It should be stressed that section 3 of the LOREG does not deprive the ‘disabled’ of their right to vote as a group or on the basis of any disability. On the contrary, it gives the judicial authorities the task of deciding on such a restriction of the exercise of the fundamental right on an individual basis, because of the specific circumstances of each person and after due process has been observed. This provision does not stipulate the deprivation of this right of suffrage in its active aspect in respect of people suffering from any disability, but only to those in respect of whom it has been so decided, by a judgment, after the appropriate proceedings have been conducted with due respect to the guarantees of adequate defence and evidence, and by virtue of the specific dysfunctionality from which they suffer and which affects their intellectual and volitional capacity with respect to the exercise of the right to vote. Therefore, the restriction should only affect those persons who lack the minimum level of understanding and will necessary to freely exercise their vote, as provided by Article 23   §   1 of the Spanish Constitution. Furthermore, the nature of the measures referred to in Article   29 (a) (i) to (iii) of the CRPD is such ... that their purpose is to ensure the effective exercise of the right to vote as a true reflection of the free will of a person with a disability and not, on the contrary, the mere insertion of the ballot paper into the ballot box. 4.     ... The case-law of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court ... requires that a decision not to allow someone to exercise his fundamental right to vote be preceded by an individualised examination of that person’s situation and by an assessment of the competing interests in play. ... ... It is necessary to point out that an assessment of the specific circumstances from which the contested decisions imply the inability to exercise the right to vote in the present case not only does not manifest any arbitrariness, irrationality, or obvious error in the wording of those decisions, but also complies with the principle of reinforced reasoning, which is required when a restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights is involved ... ... The contested judicial decisions take into consideration the data that they extract from the evidence – in particular from the forensic report and the examination carried out by the judge himself, as well as ... the statement given by the applicant’s daughter at the hearing – in order to reach a decision that cannot be categorised as unreasonable. As is clear from the judgments appealed against and as was explicit in the first-instance judgment, the disputed decision does not depend on the person’s threshold of knowledge or instruction, which is not required for other citizens not subject to incapacity proceedings. The said knowledge is only one piece of information which, together with others – particularly medical-psychiatric expert reports – can be reasonably used to evaluate a person’s aptitude ... This can also be applied to the question of ‘influence exerted by third parties’ ... It is not ... a question of identifying an absence of knowledge ... on the part of a person lacking capacity, but of recognising that through these elements (among others) ... the degree of development of the mental faculties of the person in question can be ascertained.” 15.     The Constitutional Court concluded that there had not been any violation of the fundamental rights alleged. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant Domestic Law 16.     The relevant provisions of the Spanish Constitution read as follows: Article 14 “All Spanish citizens are equal before the law and they may not in any way be discriminated against on account of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.” Article 23 “1. Citizens have the right to participate in public affairs, directly or through representatives freely elected in periodic elections by universal suffrage. 2. They likewise have the right to access on equal terms to public office, provided that they meet the requirements provided by law.” 17 .     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read as follows: Article 199 “No one may be declared incapacitated, except under a court judgment for reasons set forth in the law.” Article 200 “Persistent physical or mental illness or deficiencies that prevent a person from caring for himself constitute reasons for ruling that person legally incapacitated.” Article 232 “Guardianship shall be exercised under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor, who shall act ex officio or at the request of any interested party. The Public Prosecutor may require at any time a guardian to inform him of the situation of the minor or incapacitated person in question and of the state of the administration of the guardianship.” Article 233 “The judge may establish, in the resolution establishing a guardianship or in another subsequent resolution, any supervision and control measures deemed suitable for the benefit of the person under guardianship. Likewise, he may at any time require the guardian to inform him of the situation of the minor or incapacitated person and the state of the administration of the guardianship.” 18 .     The relevant provisions of Institutional Law 5/1985 of 19 June 1985 on the general electoral system (the LOREG), as worded at the material time, read as follows: Section 2 – Right to vote “1. All Spanish citizens of legal age not falling within any of the categories listed in the following section have the right to vote.” Section 3 – Disenfranchisement “1. The following have no right to vote: ... b) Persons declared incapacitated by a final judicial decision, provided that that decision specifically declares the person in question incapable of exercising suffrage. c) Persons residing in a mental hospital by order of a court, in the event that the court explicitly declares in its order that the person in question is incapable of exercising the right to vote. 2. For the purposes of this section, courts or tribunals having jurisdiction to declare a person’s legal incapacity or to order a person’s residence in a mental hospital must specifically decide whether that person is incapable of exercising the right to vote, and if that is the case, they shall require that fact to be noted in the Civil Register.” 19 .     Institutional Law 2/2018 of 5 December 2018 modified the LOREG so that it guaranteed the right to vote to persons with a disability, eliminating the provisions of the LOREG relating to the possibility of depriving disabled people of the right to vote. Institutional Law 2/2018, which entered into force on 7 December 2018, amended the wording of section 3 of the LOREG, so that it now reads, where relevant, as follows: “(i). Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 3 § 1 are deleted. (ii). The second paragraph of section 3 shall read as follows: Everyone shall be entitled to exercise his right to vote, knowingly, freely and voluntarily, whatever the manner in which that vote is cast and whatever means of support he may require. An eighth, additional, provision is added with the following wording: As of the entry into force of Organic Law 5/1985 of 19 June modifying the Organic Law on the General Electoral System in order to adapt it to reflect the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, any limitations on the exercise of the right to vote established by judicial resolution (on the basis of section 3(1)(b) and (c) of Organic Law 5/1985 – no longer in force) shall cease to have effect. Those persons whose right to vote has been limited or annulled owing to disability shall fully regain that right by virtue of the law”. 20.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows: Article 759 “1. In incapacity proceedings, in addition to examining evidence adduced in accordance with the provisions of Article 752, the court shall hear the next-of-kin of the allegedly incapacitated person, examine the person himself and agree on which expert opinions in respect of the claims made in the application for a declaration of incapacity should be ordered and on what other measures provided by law should be undertaken. A decision on a declaration of incapacity shall never be made without first securing, with the agreement of the relevant court, an expert medical opinion. 2. Where an application for a declaration of incapacity requests the appointment of a person or persons to assist or represent the incapacitated person and to look after him, the next-of-kin of the allegedly incapacitated person, the allegedly incapacitated person himself if there is sufficient reason, and such other persons as the court considers appropriate shall be heard regarding the matter. 3. If the judgment on incapacity is appealed against, the evidence referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall also be secured by the second-instance court.” Article 760 “1. The judgment declaring a person’s incapacity shall specify the extent and limits of that incapacity, as well as the system of guardianship or tutelage to which the incapacitated person is to be subjected, and shall rule, where appropriate, on the need for confinement, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 763. 2. In the case referred to in paragraph 2 of the preceding Article, if the court allows the application, the judgment declaring a person’s incapacity or the prodigality [ prodigalidad ] shall indicate the person or persons who, under the law, are to assist or represent the incapacitated person and look after him. 3. The judgment declaring a person’s prodigality shall determine the acts that the prodigal [ pródigo ] cannot perform without the consent of the person who is to assist him.” Article 761 “1. A finding of incapacity shall not preclude the possibility of new proceedings being instituted, in the event of new circumstances, for the purpose of terminating or modifying the scope of the incapacity already established. 2. The persons referred to in Article 757 § 1, those exercising guardianship or who have custody of the disabled person, the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the disabled person himself shall be requested to initiate the proceedings referred to in the preceding paragraph. If the incapacitated person has been deprived of the capacity to appear in court, he must obtain express judicial authorisation to act in the proceedings on his own behalf. 3. The mandatory evidence referred to in Article 759 shall be adduced ex officio , both during the first-instance proceedings and, where appropriate, in the second-instance proceedings. The judgment to be delivered shall rule on whether or not the declaration of incapacity should be revoked, or whether or not the extent and limits of the incapacity should be modified.” International Legal Instruments AND COMPARATIVE PRACTICE 21.     The relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), adopted on 19 December 1966, and ratified by Spain on 13 April 1977, read as follows: Article 25 “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.” 22.     In recent concluding observations – notably in those on the fifth periodic report of Portugal, adopted on 2-27 March 2020 (CCPR/C/PRT/CO/5) – the Human Rights Committee made the following observations with respect to persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities: “18. ... The Committee further notes with concern the undue restrictions imposed on the right to vote for people with mental disabilities. 19.   The State party should: ... (c)   Ensure that it does not discriminate against persons with mental, intellectual or psychosocial disabilities by denying them the right to vote on grounds that are disproportionate or have no reasonable and objective relation to their ability to vote, taking account of article 25 of the Covenant.” 23.     The relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted on 13 December 2006 and ratified by Spain on 9 April 2008, read as follows: Article 1 – Purpose “ The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” Article 2 – Definitions “For the purposes of the present Convention: ... ‘Discrimination on the basis of disability’ means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation. ‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Article 12 – Equal recognition before the law “1. States Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law. 2. States Parties shall recognize 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. ...” Article 29 – Participation in political and public life “States Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others, and shall undertake: a. To ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected, inter alia, by: i. Ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use; ii. Protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation, and to stand for elections, to effectively hold office and perform all public functions at all levels of government, facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate; iii. Guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end, where necessary, at their request, allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice; b. To promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public affairs, including: i. Participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country, and in the activities and administration of political parties. ii. Forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.” 24.     In its General Comment No. 1 (2014) on Article 12 of the CRPD (Equal recognition before the law), adopted on 19 May 2014, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities made the following comment on Article 29 of the CRPD: Article 29: Political participation “48. Denial or restriction of legal capacity has been used to deny political participation, especially the right to vote, to certain persons with disabilities. In order to fully realize the equal recognition of legal capacity in all aspects of life, it is important to recognize the legal capacity of persons with disabilities in public and political life (Article 29). This means that a person’s decision-making ability cannot be a justification for any exclusion of persons with disabilities from exercising their political rights, including the right to vote, the right to stand for election and the right to serve as a member of a jury. 49. States parties have an obligation to protect and promote the right of persons with disabilities to access the support of their choice in voting by secret ballot, and to participate in all elections and referendums without discrimination. The Committee further recommends that States parties guarantee the right of persons with disabilities to stand for election, to hold office effectively and to perform all public functions at all levels of government, with reasonable accommodation and support, where desired, in the exercise of their legal capacity.” 25.     Recommendation R (99)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Principles Concerning the Legal Protection of Incapacitated Adults (adopted on 23 February 1999) provides as follows: Principle 3 – Maximum preservation of capacity “... 2. In particular, a measure of protection should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote, or to make a will, or to consent or refuse consent to any intervention in the health field, or to make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so.” 26 .     The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) at its 51 st and 52 nd sessions (5-6 July and 18-19 October 2002, opinion no. 190/2002), provides as follows: “I.1. Universal suffrage – 1.1. Rule and exceptions d. Deprivation of the right to vote and to be elected: “i. provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote and to be elected, but only subject to the following cumulative conditions: ii. it must be provided for by law; iii. the proportionality principle must be observed; conditions for depriving individuals of the right to stand for election may be less strict than for disenfranchising them; iv. The deprivation must be based on mental incapacity or a criminal conviction for a serious offence. v. Furthermore, the withdrawal of political rights or finding of mental incapacity may only be imposed by express decision of a court of law.” 27.     The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights noted (in its report of 21 May 2014 entitled “The right to political participation for persons with disabilities: human rights indicators”) that the right to vote is often linked in national legislation to legal capacity; consequently, people who have been deprived of their legal capacity (either wholly or in part) are prohibited from voting. This report stated, in its relevant parts, as follows (pages 40-41; footnotes omitted): “Seven out of the 28 EU Member States – Austria, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom – guarantee the right to vote for all persons with disabilities, including those without legal capacity. In Croatia, legal reform in December 2012 abolished the exclusion of persons without legal capacity from the right to vote, meaning that people deprived of legal capacity were able to participate in the European Parliament and local elections in 2013. Similarly, amendments to the Latvian Civil Code which came into force in 2013 end the denial of the right to vote for those deprived of legal capacity. The relevant electoral legislation has not yet been amended, however, meaning people deprived of legal capacity can be barred from voting. A second group of EU Member States have a system whereby an assessment is made of the individual’s actual ability to vote. In Hungary, a system where everyone under guardianship was prohibited from voting was changed in 2012; now judges decide whether persons with “limited mental capacities” are allowed to vote. In Slovenia, the legal test for judges deciding whether to restrict the right to vote is whether the person with a disability is capable of understanding the meaning, purpose and effect of elections. A further 15 EU Member States prohibit people with disabilities who have been deprived of their legal capacity from voting. The Member States are Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. This exclusion is either set out in the country’s constitution or in electoral legislation”. 28.     The situation since that report has slightly changed (see a report of the Agency for Fundamental Rights of 2019 titled “Who will (not) get to vote in the 2019 European Parliament elections? Developments in the right to vote of people deprived of legal capacity in EU Member States”). It seems that, apart from Spain (2018), also France (2019) and Germany (2019) granted the right to vote to persons with mental disabilities. Denmark (2016 and 2018) eased the restrictions on the right to vote for persons with mental disabilities, and Belgium (2018) moved from a system of automatic disenfranchisement to one of disenfranchisement upon an individual assessment by a judge. The Supreme Court of Slovakia (2017) struck down legal provisions tying the right to vote to legal capacity. THE LAW   On the request for the application to be struck out of the list 29.     The Government argued that the application should be struck out, in accordance with the provisions of Article 37 § (1) (a) and (b) of the Convention, since the applicant’s daughter had been legally recognised as having the right to vote and the judicial decisions that had given rise to that procedure had been automatically annulled. The Government argued in particular that Institutional Law 2/2018 of 5 December 2018 had modified the LOREG, eliminating the provisions of the LOREG relating to the possibility of depriving disabled people of the right to vote and guaranteeing the right to vote to persons with a disability. 30.     The Court notes that for a certain period of time the applicant’s daughter was not permitted to vote. Various elections were held in Spain and in Europe between 2014 and 2018 (namely, elections to the European Parliament in May 2014, Spanish general elections in 2015 and 2016). In none of these elections was the applicant’s daughter, despite being of legal age, able to exercise her right to vote. 31.     Therefore, the application does not fall under Article 37 § 1; it is true that the relevant legislation was amended in 2018 and that since then, all disabled persons have been allowed to vote, but the fact remains that the applicant’s daughter was not able to vote in several elections held after she had reached her majority until the amendment of the law in 2018. 32.     The Court considers in any event that respect for human rights, as defined by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, requires it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). On the applicant’s standing to bring the present application 33.     The Court notes that the application was brought by Ms Maria del Mar Caamaño Valle in her own name, acting on behalf of her daughter, M. It accepts that under Spanish law, as is evidenced by the proceedings under review, the applicant has been exercising the rights of her disabled daughter. 34.     It is worth noting that the judicial process at each domestic instance – prior to the lodging of the instant application – consisted precisely of the domestic proceedings initiated at the time in question by the mother with the intention of extending her custody over her disabled daughter. That process ended with the declaration of her daughter’s incapacity and the extension of the parental-guardianship. It therefore considers that the applicant had the required capacity to lodge the present application. It will proceed, however, under the assumption that the actual victim of the alleged violation in this case is M. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL N o .   1 AND ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION and article 1 of protocol N o. 12 35.     The applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1. She also complained of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   12, asserting that the prohibition, in force at the relevant time, on people with disabilities voting had been discriminatory. The relevant provisions read as follows: Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” Article 14 of the Convention “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as ...other status.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 “1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.” Admissibility 36.     The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 37.     The applicant noted that despite the universality of the right to vote, as recognised by the Constitution, the LOREG stated that people whose legal capacity had been modified could be deprived of the right to vote by a judicial decision. Such a restriction constituted unquestionable discrimination on the basis of disability, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. 38.     The applicant reiterated that international treaties on human rights served as interpretative criteria in respect of the rights safeguarded by the Convention. In that regard, the CPRD, which had been largely ratified worldwide, defined the standards of protection to be afforded to people with disabilities, guaranteed the right to vote of people with disabilities, and established that States were responsible for guaranteeing the exercise of this right in conditions of equality and non-discrimination. 39.     In the applicant’s opinion, it was an “impossible chimera” ( quimera imposible ) to attempt to limit a person’s right to vote through an evaluation of his or her capabilities or ability to think freely. She maintained that voting constituted an individual and personal choice and that political pluralism was an expression of human diversity in terms of elections and respect for elections. (b)    The Government 40.     The Government stated that people with disabilities in Spain enjoyed the same fundamental rights as other citizens. The key point in the present case was that the term “disability”, as used in the CRPD, was not the equivalent of the term “incapacity”, as used by Spanish legal system. 41.     The Government noted that under Article 200 of the Civil Code, incapacity proceedings were designed to guarantee the rights of people suffering persistent mental illness or deficiencies preventing them from looking after themselves (see pa