CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 11 April 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 53162/21 Angelica DIACONEASA against Romania lodged on 11 October 2021 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the withdrawal by the authorities of the benefit of a personal assistant for the applicant, a physically disabled individual. The applicant, who is in her late sixties, had a stroke in 2013 which left her unable to move, talk or take care of her basic needs. On 9 November 2016 the Commission for the Protection of Adults with Disabilities issued a certificate, valid for one year, establishing that the applicant suffered from a severe disability necessitating a personal assistant. On 22 November 2017 the Commission issued a new certificate, valid for two years, whereby the applicant was assessed as having a severe disability not necessitating a personal assistant. A similar assessment was made by the Commission in the certificate issued on 20 November 2019; on that occasion, the Commission also considered that the applicant’s condition was permanent and did not necessitate periodic reassessment. The applicant contested both certificates, arguing mainly that her physical condition had not improved since 2016. Both certificates were eventually upheld by the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, the first in a final decision of 15 June 2020 and the second in a final decision of 12   April 2021. The applicant complains that the disputed measure has disproportionately affected her right to respect for her private life, as it has forced her into isolation and has deprived her of her autonomy. She invokes Articles 5, 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, concerning the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal’s decisions upholding the assessment of the level of care required by the applicant’s condition (final decisions of 15 June 2020 and 12   April 2021)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, with regard to the withdrawal of the benefit of a personal assistant decided by the Commission for the Protection of Adults with Disabilities and upheld by the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal in its final decisions of 15 June 2020 and 12   April 2021?