On 11 September 2007, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has quashed two judgments by the lower courts in case of D.L. represented by HRMI. The decision found faulty the long-standing practice abusive of rights of individuals who are subjected to legal incapacitation procedure. The case has been sent for reconsideration.
D.L.'s son had requested the court to deprive his mother of her legal capacity as, in his opinion, inadequate, irritable and depressive behaviour attests that she suffers from a mental disorder. Local court satisfied applicant’s request and declared D.L. legally incapable. The decision was upheld on appeal.
On behalf of D.L., Human Rights Monitoring Institute lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In unprecedented move, the Court has criticized the long-standing practice in cases of legal incapacitation.
The Court noted that "in cases of deprivation of legal capacity there is always a danger to violate the fundamental human rights of concerned individuals, therefore solid arguments should be presented in order to initiate legal procedure, and during the process courts have to ensure an adequate protection of the right to fair trial in accordance with the European Convention for Human Rights (article 6, part 1)".
The Court agreed with the D.L arguments that it is not merely up to the psychiatric examiner to conclude whether a person is inable to understand the meaning of his or her actions and take purposeful decisions. It is also a question of fact - courts should take into careful consideration all available evidentiary material. The Court noted that a person’s behavior which is irrational, eccentric or deviates from dominating social standards is not to be considered a vital evidence in the cases regarding legal incapacity.
The Court concluded that the entirety of evidence presented in D.L case does not show that D.L.'s mental health condition is such that she is not capable of understanding the meaning of her actions and of taking meaningful decisions to the degree that she should be deprived of her legal capacity.
The Court agreed with the arguments of the appeal that the court that heard the case on merits was not sufficiently dilligent to ensure the presence of D.L. at the hearings, and, consequently, violated the principle of procedural equality as she did not have a possibility to question presented evidence, present motions and enjoy other procedural rights. On the basis of the case materials, the Court said that "it is likely that D.L. had no knowledge of the court proceedings at all. Therefore the procedural right of D.L. to be duly informed about the time and place of court hearings was violated, along with other fundamental procedural rights ensuring in its entirety the right to the fair trial".
The arguments of the Supreme Court represent an important step towards changing the deep-rooted faulty practice in cases of legal incapacitation. Futher efforts are needed to ensure the right to legal assistance, to introduce the concept of limited legal incapacity, and to ensure adequate monitoring and responsibility of court appointed guardians.
See the full judgment (in Lithuanian) here.
© 2012 Human Rights Monitoring Institute