Previous 29 / 38 Next

CAAMAÑO VALLE v. SPAIN JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LEMMENS 1. To my regret, I am unable to agree with the finding of the majority that there has been no violation of either Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention or Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. I must admit from the outset that the majority’s opinion is based on solid reasoning and that it is in line with the Court’s existing case-law.1 I believe, however, that the interpretation of the Convention in this area requires updating, and that an updated interpretation would necessarily lead to a different outcome in the present case. I. ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 2. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 provides that “the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The present case deals with a limitation of the right to vote, based on the applicant’s daughter’s lack of capacity in respect of political affairs and electoral matters (see the decision of the first-instance court, referred to in paragraph 8 of the judgment). Such a limitation can be accepted only if it does not curtail the right in question to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of its effectiveness, if it is imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and if the means employed are not disproportionate (see paragraph 56 of the judgment). In addition, the limitation in question must not thwart the “free expression of the opinion of the people” (see paragraph 57 of the judgment). A. The limitation of the applicant’s daughter’s right to vote 3. With respect to the first aspect, the justifiability from the point of view of the individual in question, the majority consider that the right to vote can be restricted on the basis of a person’s mental capacity, if the aim is to ensure that “only citizens capable of assessing the consequences of their decisions and making conscious and judicious decisions should participate in public affairs” (see paragraph 61 of the judgment, referring to Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 38, 20 May 2010). 4. This point of view conflicts with the interpretation given by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (hereafter “the 1 I will not discuss the recent case of Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark (nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, 2 February 2021), as the judgment in that case is not yet final at the moment of writing of this opinion. 27

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