06 May Disenfranchisement of mentally incompetent persons in accordance with the requirements of the Convention

In the case of Caamaño Valle v. Spain (application no. 43564/17, 11.05.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, by 6 votes to 1, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination).

The case concerned the disenfranchisement of the applicant’s daughter, M., who was mentally disabled. Just before M.’s 18th birthday, the applicant applied for her guardianship over her daughter to beextended. However, she asked specifically that her daughter not be deprived of her right to vote. Nevertheless, when the extension of her guardianship was ordered, the First-Instance Judge ordered that M.’s right to vote be revoked, holding that she was not capable of exercising that right.

The Court reiterated that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 guaranteed individual rights, including the right to vote, although the States had some limited discretion in this area. Any conditions imposed had to be the “free expression of the people in their choice of legislature”. 

The Court stated that the aim of “ensuring that only citizens capable of assessing the consequences of their decisions and making conscious and judicious decisions should participate in public affairs” was legitimate. It was satisfied that that had been the aim in the decision to disenfranchise M.

In the light of the domestic courts’ judgments at several levels of jurisdiction, the Court was also satisfied that the authorities had balanced the interests at stake and had based their judgments on M.’s personal lack of understanding of the meaning of a vote and her susceptibility to being influenced. As such, her disenfranchisement had been proportionate. 

The Court was furthermore satisfied that the disenfranchisement of the applicant’s daughter did not thwart the free expression of the opinion of the people. Therefore, there had been no violation of the Convention in this regard.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights