Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149

February 2012

D.D. v. Lithuania - 13469/06

Judgment 14.2.2012 [Section II]

Article 5

Article 5-1-e

Persons of unsound mind

Confinement of mentally disabled applicant against her will for over seven years: no violation

Article 5-4

Review of lawfulness of detention

Inability for mentally disabled applicant to contest involuntary confinement with separate legal representation: violation

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Unfairness of guardianship proceedings concerning mentally disabled applicant: violation

Facts – The applicant, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was legally incapacitated in 2000 at the request of her adoptive father, who was later appointed her legal guardian. He subsequently requested that the applicant be admitted to a home for individuals with general learning disabilities since, as attested by a social worker, she was unable to take care of herself. The applicant was admitted to the home against her will in July 2004 following a decision of a panel designated by a local city council, supported by the social services. They had concluded that the applicant was unable to cater for her basic needs, did not understand the value of money and had occasional anger outbreaks. In 2005 and with the assistance of her former psychiatrist and then friend D.G., the applicant asked for the guardianship proceedings to be reopened and D.G. appointed as her guardian. She claimed that she had never been informed of or summoned to the court hearing at which her adoptive father had been appointed, that her relationship with her adoptive father was very tense and that she had been placed in the home on his initiative and incapacitated without her knowledge. The court held a closed hearing on 7 November 2005, but refused the applicant’s request to be assisted by a lawyer on the grounds that her guardian’s lawyer would represent her interests. The applicant alleges that she was taken to the judge’s office during a break in the hearing and warned not to say anything negative about her adoptive father. After the break she agreed to her adoptive father remaining her guardian but asked to be released from the home. Subsequently, the court refused to reopen the guardianship proceedings.

Law

(a) Admissibility

(i) Victim status – The original application form had been signed by D.D. without any indication that her signature might have been forged. She had subsequently appointed a lawyer who, in his observations in reply to the Government, had followed the applicant’s initial complaints. It was therefore legitimate to conclude that D.D. had validly lodged an application in her own name and that she could claim to be a victim in respect of the complaints listed in her application.

Conclusion: victim status upheld (unanimously).

(ii) Abuse of the right of application – The issue of the applicant’s alleged abuse of the right of application, on account of allegedly incorrect information in her application form, was closely linked and thus joined to the merits of her complaints.

(b) Merits

Article 6 § 1: Even though the Court was unable to examine the initial appointment of a guardian, as the complaint concerning this aspect of the case had been lodged outside the six-months time-limit, it could not overlook the fact that the applicant had not participated in the court proceedings for her incapacitation. As regards the proceedings for a change of guardian, given the applicant’s problematic relationship with her adoptive father and their conflicting interests, her adoptive father’s lawyer could not properly represent her and she should have had her own lawyer. The judge had also refused a request by D.G. for an audio recording to be made and it appeared that the applicant had not been allowed to sit next to D.G. during the hearing. The applicant had allegedly been taken to the judge’s of