Facts
The complainant 1, [X.] , was deprived of her civil rights in 2002 due to mental disability and lives in a home. In August 2009, she mandated Attorney [Y.] to review her guardianship measures. However, the guardianship authority and the High Court of the Canton of Aargau denied her judicial capacity to mandate an attorney. The complainant 1 and Attorney [Y.] filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.
The complainant 1 was born in 1966 and suffers from trisomy 21 and severe juvenile invalidating chronic polyarthritis. She was deprived of her civil rights by judgment of the District Court of Kulm of December 17, 2002, based on Art. 369 CC, due to mental disability. The guardianship authority [Z.] appointed [A.] as her guardian.
Attorney [Y.] wrote to the guardian [A.] on December 23, 2009, and requested the files to review the initial situation. The guardian inquired with the guardianship authority [Z.] about what to do in this matter. The Municipal Council [Z.] , as the guardianship authority, concluded that [X.] lacked the judicial capacity for independent attorney mandate.
Attorney [Y.] filed a complaint with the District Office of Kulm, which did not intervene. The High Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed the complaint and ordered Attorney [Y.] to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court partially upheld the complaint and annulled the decision of the High Court of the Canton of Aargau. The matter was referred back to the High Court for reevaluation.
The Federal Supreme Court found that the complainant 1 is to be considered procedurally capable for the proceedings to clarify her judicial capacity. The lower court wrongly denied her party status and treated…