DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SAJÓ

To my regret I cannot follow the majority in this case as the conditions for a strike-out are not met. The case concerns the fate of a mentally disabled person whose only supportive environment is the current one. Does “tolerated residence”, in such cases, comply with the Convention? This question must be answered in order to ensure respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (see Article 37 § 1 of the Convention ).

I find it particularly troubling that the Court sees no justification for continuing the examination of the application under the circumstances “and in view of the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention.” The Court ’ s role is not supervisory; it has to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties (see Article 19 of the Convention ). Whatever subsidiarity might mean in the present context, it cannot serve as a ground justifying a strike-out. Otherwise any other reason could be used to justify a strike-out, and the Court would be exercising unfettered discretion.

For these reasons I am compelled to dissent.