| Applicant name | A.K.K. |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Turkey |
| Application no. | 56578/11 |
| Date | 03/10/2023 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, président, Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Saadet Yüksel, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Diana Sârcu, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Necessary in a democratic society (public safety, the prevention of criminal offenses, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others) |
| Type of privacy | Private life |
| Keywords | Placing under legal guardianship |
| Facts of the case | The applicant, deploring that her legal incapacity was declared without valid reasons and in the absence of the assistance of a lawyer, complains in particular that the domestic courts did not take the necessary steps to ensure her a appointed lawyer and to respond to his challenges to the medical reports on which he was placed under guardianship; in short, the Turkish judicial system would not have been able to protect her against this disproportionate measure which would have ruined her future. In this regard, the applicant alleges a violation of her right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as a disregard of her right to protection of her private life in breach of Article 8, two provisions that it invokes separately and combined with Article 13. |
| Analysis | The Court stresses that it will assess the case solely under Article 8 ECHR. It finds that it is true that the lawyer of the applicant chose to recuse himself because the applicant requested legal actions that the lawyer could not account for. There was a call for legal assistance, but no alternative was found. As to whether the state had a positive obligation to ensure that the applicant had legal representation, given that the legal procedure was about her mental incapacity, but the Court answers this question negative. The fact that an individual must be placed under guardianship because she does not have the capacity to administer her affairs does not does not mean that she is incapable of commenting on his situation. All the other requirements of an adequate decision making process were met. The measures where moreover limited to what was necessary in light of the circumstances of the case. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 6 or 13 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |