Applicant name X.
Applicant type Natural person
Country UK
Decision no.7940/77
Institution Commission
Type Decision
Outcome Art. 8 Inadmissible
Reason No interference
Type of privacy Private life; right to reputation
Keywords Legal guardian
Facts of the case Man is appointed a legal guardian after brain operation.
Analysis This short case is interesting for four reasons. First, the Commission continues its ‘even if’ type of reasoning, wherewith it circumvents difficult legal questions. In this case, it does not assess in detail whether the applicant had exhausted all domestic-remedies, because in any case, there had been no interference with his Convention rights. Second, the Commission does not concluse that there has been no interference with the applicant’s rights, but only that this is prima facie so. Apperantly, it wants to leave open the possibility that more evidence will be presented at a later moment, yet it does not invite the applicant to submit more evidence, but dismisses the case. Third, apperantly, the Commission does not feel that being appointed a legal guardian and being deprived of a certian sense of autonomy is in itself an interference witht the right to private life, even though the Commission acknowledges that the decision by the national authorities did not seem to be based on a thourough evaluation of the applicant’s mental and physical capabilities and impairments. Rather, it stresses that the applicant failed to demonstrate ‘how either his professional or private reputation has been damaged’. Fourth, although the Court only formally accepted a right to reputation under the material scope of Article 8 ECHR in 2007 and/or 2009, it seems to imply that the right to reputation is covered by the right to privacy, what is more, it seems to declare the case inadmissible because the applicant cannot demonstrate that this right to reputation has been interfered with.
Documents Decision