Previous 21 / 38 Next

CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT relations between the Contracting Parties (see, among many other authorities, Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 67, ECHR 2008, Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 134, 21 June 2016, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 123, 8 November 2016, and N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, § 172, 13 February 2020). 53. At the same time, the Court reiterates that it has authority to ensure that the text of the European Convention on Human Rights is respected (see Aliyeva and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35587/08, § 74, 31 July 2014). It is the Convention which the Court can interpret and apply; it does not have authority to ensure respect for international treaties or obligations other than the Convention (see Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no.36925/07, § 235, 29 January 2019). 54. The Court acknowledges that other instruments can offer wider protection than the Convention (regarding the CRPD, for example, see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 205, 31 January 2019), but the Court is not bound by interpretations given to similar instruments by other bodies, having regard to the possible difference in the contents of the provisions of other international instruments and/or the possible difference in role of the Court and the other bodies (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 113, 20 October 2016). The Court understands that the Convention should be interpreted, as far as possible, in harmony with other rules of international law. (b) Alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (i) General principles 55. The Court has established that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see, inter alia, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 51, Series A no. 113, and Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 385 22 December 2020). However, the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are not absolute. There is room for implied limitations, and the Contracting States have a margin of appreciation in this sphere, which generally is a wide one (see the abovecited cases of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, § 52, and Selahattin Demirtaş, § 387). The Court reiterates, however, that if a restriction on the right to vote applies to a particularly vulnerable group in society that has suffered considerable discrimination in the past, such as the mentally disabled, then the State’s margin of appreciation is substantially narrower (see Alajos Kiss, cited above, § 42). 56. It is for the Court to finally determine whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with. It has to satisfy itself that the limitations imposed on the exercise of the rights under Article 3 of 19

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Caamaño Valle v. Spain

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the rescission of voting rights for disabled person under guardianship based on individualized assessment is legal under Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Alleged Acts: Applicant, Ms. Caamaño Valle, was the mother of a young woman with an intellectual disability. Around her daughter's 18th birthday, the mother requested that her daughter be placed under her legal guardianship (partial guardianship under Spanish law), but explicitly asked that the daughter not be deprived of her right to vote. Spanish courts placed the daughter under guardianship but also removed her voting rights, finding that she was "highly influenceable and not aware of the consequences of any vote that she might cast." The Spanish courts determined that the daughter lacked sufficient mental capacity to make a free and informed electoral choice, and that allowing her to vote would not serve the purpose of the democratic process.

Procedural history: Mother filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the disenfranchisement violated her daughter's right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Summary: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Caamaño Valle v. Spain that Spain did not violate the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to vote) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in the case of her daughter, M., who has an intellectual disability.

Conclusion: Spain's disenfranchisement of the applicant's daughter did not violate the European Convention. The judgment upheld the removal of voting rights for a person with an intellectual disability where domestic courts had conducted an individualized assessment and found that the person was incapable of understanding the electoral process and susceptible to undue influence.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility

Applicable Law(s): Article 3, Protocol No. 1, and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Spain

Language of Decision

English

Court: Human Rights Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Aug 11, 2021

Geolocation

Latitude: 48.5964

Longitude: 7.7742

: Geolocation

Link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-210089%22]}

Primary Documents

CASE OF CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Caamaño Valle v. Spain

Primary Documents

Notifications