CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 13 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 62250/19 Ioan-Doroteu JIVAN against Romania lodged on 22 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations that the domestic authorities wrongly assessed the severity of the applicant’s disability, thus depriving him of the possibility to benefit from a personal assistant. The applicant, who is 88 years old, has a partially amputated leg and suffers from several medical conditions. He uses a wheelchair to move around. He is currently helped in his daily activities by his son. The Commission for the Protection of Adults with Disabilities assessed the applicant’s living arrangements and their compatibility with his medical situation, and concluded that the applicant was severely disabled and needed a personal assistant. A separate ADL evaluation of the applicant’s condition (“activities of daily living” scale) reached the same conclusion. In a final decision of 22 May 2019 (file no. 88/111/CA/2019-R), the Oradea Court of Appeal found that, despite the above assessments, the applicant’s principal medical condition (partial amputation of a leg) was not qualified by law as being a “severe disability” (Order no. 762/2007 of the Ministry of Work, Family and Equal Opportunity). Consequently, the court ruled that he could not benefit from a personal assistant. The applicant complains that the domestic court failed to undertake a complex evaluation of his disability and medical condition, as required by law (Chapter 7, Section III.1 of Ministry Order no. 762/2007). He also complains about the length of those proceedings, arguing that in delaying the examination of his action, the domestic court failed to take into account his age and the difficulties he encounters in his daily life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with regard to the manner in which the Oradea Court of Appeal (final decision of 22   May 2019) assessed his situation and applied the relevant legal standards (notably Chapter 7, Section III.1 of Order no. 762/2007 of the Ministry of Work, Family and Equal Opportunity)?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings giving rise to the Oradea Court of Appeal’s final decision of 22 May 2019 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?