Published on 30 May 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 29634/22 I.M.P. against Romania lodged on 6 June 2022 communicated on 11 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations that the domestic authorities wrongly assessed the severity of the applicant’s disability, thus depriving her of the possibility to benefit from a personal assistant.

The applicant is a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer disease. She is represented before the Court by her lawyer and complains that the domestic authorities wrongly assessed the severity of her disability, thus depriving her of the possibility of benefiting from a personal assistant. According to recent medical reports, she has “Alzheimer dementia with severe cognitive dysfunctions”; she has an extremely poor conversational capacity, difficulties in focusing, hypomnesia in relation to recalling recent data/events, accentuated executive dysfunction with inability to plan, impaired judgment and inability to assess risks. She requires constant support, including for simple tasks, as getting dressed or cooking. She is totally unable to go outside her house without someone else’s help.

On 15 December 2020 the applicant was granted a “disability certificate” from the Maramureș Commission for the Evaluation of Adults with Disabilities, attesting that she had a severe disability. On 29 January 2021 she requested for this certificate to be annulled and for a new one to be issued, attesting not only that she had a severe disability, but also that she needed a personal assistant. Her request was rejected by final decision of 17 February 2022, issued by the Cluj Court of Appeal. The domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant was disoriented and that her memory was partially affected. They considered, however, that, given that she could eat and walk on her own, not being completely impaired by a physical disability, she did not need a personal assistant.

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and, in substance, also in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic court failed to undertake a complex evaluation of her disability and medical condition. She also complains about the length of the proceedings, arguing that in delaying the examination of her action, the domestic court failed to take into account her age and the difficulties she encounters in her daily life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with regard to the manner in which the Cluj Court of Appeal (final decision of 17 February 2022) assessed her situation?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights in connection with her age and health situation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?