A case regarding provisions regulating acknowledging a person as lacking the capacity to act has been initiated
The First Panel of the Constitutional Court has initiated a case “On Compliance of Section 358 and Section 364 of the Civil Law with Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 96 of the Satversme provides that everyone has the right to inviolability of his or her private life, home and correspondence.
The contested norms of the Civil Law provide that mentally ill, who lack all or a large part of their mental capacity, shall be acknowledged as lacking the capacity to act; trusteeship may be established for them; the inability to act shall be restored if the person has recovered his or her health.
The applicant indicates that she has been acknowledged as lacking the capacity to act due to her mental disease. Normative acts of Latvia do not provide for any alternative action; therefore a person acknowledged as lacking the capacity to act is denied the possibility to independently make substantial decisions regarding his or her life. It is indicated in the application that other alternatives are denied since only one kind and extent of the restriction is established for persons acknowledged as lacking the capability to act, provided that alternative restrictions could be more lenient for a particular person, for instance, partial restriction of the capability to act. According to the Applicant, although in sometimes she needs help, some of her rights, for instance, the right to have a simple work, to create a family, are restricted without reason.
It is maintained in the application that the contested norms restrict the right of the applicant to inviolability of private life at a greater extent that this, in fact, is required. Therefore the applicant holds that the contested norms restrict her right to private life in a non-proportional manner.
The Saeima is asked to provide, before 28 June 2010, a reply on factual circumstances of the case and legal justification thereof. The term of preparation of the case is 28 September 2010.
Linked case: 2010-38-01