issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 359 (2018)
25.10.2018
Judgments and decisions of 25 October 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments1 and 31
decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one
other Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (no. 38450/12);
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Delecolle v. France (application no 37646/13)
The applicant, the late Mr Roger Delecolle, was a French national who was born in 1937 and lived in
Paris.
The case concerned the right of a person placed under enhanced curatorship to marry without the
authorisation of his or her curator or of the guardianship judge.
In June 2009 the guardianship judge of the District Court placed Mr Delecolle, who was aged 72 at
the time, under enhanced curatorship. Mr Delecolle applied to the Paris tribunal de grande instance
to have the measure lifted. The tribunal de grande instance rejected the application, finding that the
applicant no longer had the physical or intellectual capacity to manage his immovable property.
Mr Delecolle requested authorisation from his curator to marry M.S., a friend whom he had known
since 1996 and with whom he had been in a relationship since 2008. The curator refused the request
on the grounds that she did not know the applicant sufficiently well to authorise the marriage.
Mr Delecolle then sought authorisation from the guardianship judge.
The guardianship judge refused the applicant’s request following a medical expert opinion and a
social welfare report, finding that the proposed marriage ran counter to the applicant’s interests at
that stage. The applicant appealed and the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the
guardianship judge. The Court of Appeal noted that although Mr Delecolle had, on several occasions,
expressed the wish to marry M.S., the serious disorders from which he suffered severely impaired
his judgment. It also observed that, since living with M.S., Mr Delecolle had made a number of
irrational management decisions. The Court of Appeal further noted that his relationship with his
daughter, M.D., had deteriorated considerably. Mr Delecolle appealed on points of law and
requested the court to refer a question concerning Article 460 § 1 of the Civil Code for a preliminary
ruling on constitutionality. In June 2012 the Constitutional Council found that the provision in
question was compatible with the Constitution, as it did not prohibit marriage but made it subject to
authorisation by the curator. In December 2012 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on
points of law by the applicant.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
