STRØBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK JUDGMENT 106. The Supreme Court found that the purpose of disenfranchising legally incompetent persons under section 29 of the Constitution pursued a legitimate aim, as set out by the Court in Alajos Kiss (cited above). 107. The Supreme Court also found that such disenfranchisement had been proportionate. In that respect it gave weight to the fact, as stated above, that the requirements for declaring a person legally incompetent were strict, that the restriction on the right to vote set out in section 29 of the Constitution therefore affected a low number of persons, and that the legislature had intended to afford the right to vote to the extent possible under the Constitution, notably when passing the Guardianship Act in 1996, and when passing Act no. 391 of 27 April 2016, which had given persons deprived of their legal capacity the right to vote in elections for the European Parliament and in local and regional elections. The case thus differed significantly from the situation in Alajos Kiss (cited above). Moreover, the Supreme Court considered that it could not be inferred from the Court’s case-law that in order for a restriction on the right to vote in respect of persons deprived of their legal capacity to be considered compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, a specific and individual assessment always had to be made of the relevant person’s mental capacity to exercise the right to vote. It observed in that respect, as did the High Court, that a specific and individual assessment of whether a person’s mental capacity was sufficient to exercise the right to vote might give rise to concern. 108. Lastly, the Supreme Court observed that other European countries also had legislation restricting the right to vote in respect of persons who had been deprived of their legal capacity. 109. Against this background, the Supreme Court found no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (or of Article 14 of the Convention). 110. The Court notes from the above that the Supreme Court thoroughly examined the proportionality and justification of the limitation of the applicants’ voting rights, and performed a balancing of interests, in the light of the Court’s case-law, including Alajos Kiss (cited above). The quality of the judicial review of the disputed general measure and its application in the present case therefore militate in favour of a wide margin of appreciation. 111. A further factor of relevance to the scope of the margin of appreciation is the existence or not of common ground between the national laws of the Contracting States. Relying on the report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights of 21 May 2014 on “The right to political participation for persons with disabilities: human rights indicators”, the Supreme Court noted that other European countries also had legislation restricting the right to vote in respect of persons who had been deprived of their legal capacity. At the time, besides Denmark, it concerned Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia (see 30