CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA38CC292 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB2F574BD { width:88.1pt; display:inline-block } .sC80ED7E1 { width:55.9pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt }   Published on 26 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53638/20 R.M.Y.B. and A.G.Y. against Spain lodged on 24 November 2020 communicated on 6 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings, in which the applicants requested that their relative (the spouse and father, respectively, of the applicants) be deprived of his legal capacity. Domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ request on the grounds that the intellectual and volitional capacities of the defendant deemed intact. The applicants requested to be heard by the experts who were to carry the examination of the defendant’s situation. Both the judge of first instance and the court of appeal rejected the request on the grounds of a possible conflict of interest. At the appeal stage, two additional expert examinations of the defendant were carried out. For one expertise, the expert s were allowed to meet with the partner of the alleged disabled person. The other experts concluded that the defendant retained his intellectual and volitional capacities intact but indicated that it would have been desirable to have heard the applicants to reach a more precise conclusion. The court of appeal took both reports into account to dismiss the applicants’ claims.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the special features of disability proceedings in which the best interests of the alleged disabled person are paramount ( Evers v.   Germany , no. 17895/14, § 82, 28 May 2020), did the applicants enjoy the right to equality of arms under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the court of appeal rejected their requests to be heard by the experts even though the partner of the alleged disabled person had been heard by one of them ( mutatis mutandis , Letinčić v. Croatia , no. 7183/11, §§   48 and   50, 3 May 2016)?