issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 290 (2024)
10.12.2024
Judgments and decisions of 10 December 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1 and one decision2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of Ramaj
v. Albania (application no. 17758/06) and F.M. and Others v. Russia (nos. 71671/16 and 40190/18);
a separate press release has also been issued for the Chamber judgment in the case Martinez
Alvarado v. the Netherlands (no. 4470/21) and the decision Kumari v. the Netherlands
(no. 44051/20);
six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be
The judgments below are only available in French.
M.T.S. and M.J.S. v. Portugal (application no. 39848/19)
The applicants, M.T.S and M.J.S., are a daughter and mother who were born in 1962 and 1921
respectively; they live in Lisbon.
The case concerns guardianship (interdição) proceedings brought by the first applicant (M.T.S.) in
respect of the second applicant (M.J.S.) in the Lisbon Court, at the close of which J., the latter’s
eldest son, was appointed as her guardian.
M.J.S. has been a widow since 2007. She has four children: J. (the eldest), E., A. and her youngest
daughter (M.T.S., the first applicant). On 30 January 2012, at the L. Hospital in Lisbon, the second
applicant gave power of attorney to her daughter M.T.S., authorising her to manage her bank
accounts and to act on her behalf before all private or public bodies. On the same day, in a separate
notarised document at the same hospital, she declared that she was able to live alone and
autonomously, and that if she were to lose that autonomy or her decision-making capacity, she did
not wish any of her children to move in with her. She also indicated that she wished the first
applicant, M.T.S., to be responsible for any decisions on medical treatment she might need and for
the management of her personal affairs and bank accounts.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the first applicant submits on behalf of the second
applicant that the civil proceedings declaring M.J.S. to be legally incapacitated and appointing J. as
her guardian violated her mother’s right to a fair hearing; she complains in that connection that the
domestic courts failed to hear the second applicant and did not take into account her wishes as
expressed in the notarised document concerning her choice of guardian. The first applicant, again on
behalf of the second, considers that appointing J. as her guardian violated their right to respect for
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.
