CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT
the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Napotnik, cited
above, § 71).
81. The Court has also established in its case-law that only differences in
treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or “status”, are capable of
amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14
(see Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 113, 5 September 2017).
82. The Court notes, in respect of the instant case, that the right to vote
of the applicant’s daughter was restricted because of her limited mental
capacity. The difference in treatment between the daughter (whose right to
vote was restricted) and persons who had the right to vote was therefore
based on the respective mental capacity of each person. The Court considers
that (in respect of restrictions on the right to vote) a difference in treatment
based on such grounds pursues a legitimate aim and that there is a
reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and
the aim sought to be realised. The assessment underlying the Court’s
conclusion that the interferences with the right to vote of the applicant’s
daughter were justified under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 took into account
the applicant’s daughter special status (that is to say the fact that the degree
of her legal capacity had been modified). These considerations are equally
valid within the context of Article 14 and, even assuming that the
applicant’s daughter can be deemed to be in a comparable position to other
persons whose legal capacity has not been modified, justify the difference of
treatment complained of.
83. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been no
violation of either Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
1. Declares, unanimously, the application admissible;
2. Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1;
3. Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been no violation of either
Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1, or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
25