Information Note on the Court’s case-law 205

March 2017

A.-M.V. v. Finland - 53251/13

Judgment 23.3.2017 [Section I]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Refusal to comply with mentally disabled adult’s wishes regarding his education and place of residence: no violation

Facts – In June 2009 a mentor was appointed to deal with the property and financial affairs of the applicant, an intellectually disabl ed adult. The district court making the order also ruled that the mentor had power to deal with the applicant’s personal affairs to the extent that the applicant was unable to understand their significance. Subsequently, the mentor refused, on the basis of a psychologist’s report, to permit the applicant to move to a remote village in the North of Finland to live with his former foster parents. The district court subsequently refused a request by the applicant for a change of mentor. In the Convention proce edings, the applicant complained under Article 8 that his personal wishes regarding his place of residence and his education had not been respected and it had not been possible to have his mentor replaced.

Law – Article 8: The interference with the applic ant’s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting his health, interpreted in the broader context of well-being. The Court went on to consider whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society.

The impugned decision had been taken in the context of a mentor arrangement that had been based on, and tailored to, the applicant’s specific individual circumstances following a concrete and careful consideration of all the releva nt aspects of the particular situation. In essence, rather than being based on a qualification of the applicant as a person with a disability it was based on the finding, supported by expert evidence, that the effects of the applicant’s disability on his c ognitive skills rendered him unable adequately to understand the significance and implications of the specific decision he wished to take, so that his well-being and interests required maintaining the mentor arrangement.

The domestic authorities had struck a proper balance between respect for the dignity and self-determination of the individual and the need to protect and safeguard the interests of persons in a particularly vulnerable position. In that connection, the Court noted that (i) there had been eff ective safeguards in the domestic proceedings to prevent abuse, as required by the standards of international human rights law, ensuring that the applicant’s rights, will and preferences were taken into account; (ii) the applicant had been involved at all stages of the proceedings, having been heard in person and able to put forward his wishes; (iii) the interference was proportional and tailored to the applicant’s circumstances, and was subject to review by competent, independent and impartial domestic cou rts; and (iv) the measure was consonant with the legitimate aim of protecting the applicant’s health, in the broader sense of his well-being.

Accordingly, the decision of the domestic courts had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and the refusal to make changes in the mentor arrangements was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

The Court also found, unanimously, no breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.

(See also the Factsheet on Persons with disabilities and the European Convention on Human Rights )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes