CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 24 June 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38048/18 N. against Romania (no. 2) lodged on 1 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant suffers from a mental disorder (see for a more detailed factual background N. v. Romania , no. 59152/08, 28 November 2017). The present application concerns the legal incapacitation proceedings lodged against the applicant, in which the Buzău County Court gave its final judgment on 28 February 2018. The domestic court granted the request lodged by the Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital, the institution where the applicant was detained at the time, and, based mainly on the applicant’s medical diagnosis, decided to fully deprive the applicant of his legal capacity, placing him under the authority of a legal guardian, namely the Unguriu Village. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in the light of the domestic court’s decisions to declare him legally incapable and to place him under the authority of the appointed guardian, Unguriu Village? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see for instance Shtukaturov v.   Russia , no.   44009/05, ECHR 2008 and A.N. v. Lithuania , no.   17280/08, 31   May 2016)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his placement under full guardianship, on account of his disability and social status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?