EIT: Suomi ei loukannut oikeutta yksityiselämän suojaan, kun edunvalvojaa ei suostuttu vaihtamaan

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa yksimielisesti katsonut, että Suomi ei ollut loukannut valittajan yksityiselämän suojaa tilanteessa, jossa kehitysvammainen aikuinen valittaja oli halunnut vaihtaa edunvalvojaansa, jotta hän olisi voinut muuttaa toiselle paikkakunnalle asumaan.

Ottaen huomioon yksityiselämän suojaa (EIS 8 artikla) koskevan ratkaisun EIT katsoi, että valitus koskien oikeutta valita asuinpaikkansa (EIS 4. lisäpöytäkirjan 2 artiklan liikkumisvapaus) ei voinut johtaa toiseen lopputulokseen. Näin ollen myöskään tuota artiklaa ei ollut loukattu.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The case A.-M.V. v. Finland (application no. 53251/13) concerned an intellectually disabled man’s complaint about the Finnish courts’ refusal to replace his court-appointed mentor, meaning that he has been prevented from deciding where and with whom he would like to live. His court-appointed mentor had previously decided that it was not in his best interests for him to move from his home town in the south of Finland to live in a remote village in the far north with his former foster parents. In the related court proceedings his request to replace the mentor was refused.

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) or of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court considered that the Finnish courts’ decision to refuse to make changes in the mentor arrangements, reached following a concrete and careful consideration of the applicant’s situation, had essentially taken into account his inability to understand what was at stake if he moved, namely that it would involve a radical change in his living conditions. Such a decision, taken in the context of protecting the applicant’s health and well-being, had not therefore been disproportionate. Moreover, the applicant had been involved at all stages of the proceedings and his rights, will and preferences had been taken into account by competent, independent and impartial domestic courts.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here