The Supreme Court establishes that suffering from paranoid schizophrenia does not prevent obtaining Spanish nationality

The Chamber explains that all the personal circumstances of the applicants, both favorable and adverse, must be assessed

MADRID, 22 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has established that suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, a type of mental illness, does not prevent a citizen from obtaining Spanish nationality, since in order to grant it, all the applicant's behaviors must be assessed, both those that are favorable and those that are adverse.

In a judgment dated November 3, collected by Europa Press, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber has declared the right of a Moroccan citizen who suffers from this disease to Spanish nationality, having proven his good civic behavior after studying all his Personal circumstances.

The citizen filed an appeal after the General Director of Registries and Notaries denied his application for nationality, basing his decision on the fact that the person concerned had not justified the requirement of good civic conduct, given that he had four arrests, the last in 2013, when his application for nationality was being processed.

The National Court confirmed the administrative decision in a ruling and concluded that it was neither its competence nor was it the object of the litigation to make a judgment of imputability of conduct, for which reason the granting of Spanish nationality was unfeasible since good civic conduct could not be appreciated.

However, the Supreme Court considers that in this case the good behavior of the applicant is proven. The high court argues that the first three arrests occurred in 1998, 1999 and 2006, on dates well before the time of the request, which was filed in 2012.

In addition, they explain that in relation to the last arrest, which occurred in 2013, shortly after said presentation, the judgment of the National Court highlighted the lack of proof of the reason for the police intervention and its result.

The ruling, a presentation by magistrate Fernando Román, explains that "it does not appear in the proceedings what was the route of any of the aforementioned police proceedings." "But, what did appear in the file -despite what was argued in the two administrative resolutions- because this was reflected by the magistrate in charge of the Civil Registry of Leganés, was that the applicant had no criminal record, a fact that was later corroborated at headquarters by means of the certificate provided together with the claim", he argues.

The sentence indicates that "this, since no other information appears in the proceedings about the circumstances surrounding the indicated arrests", "leads them to conclude that, in this case, from the mere citation of the existence of those police proceedings the concurrence of an antisocial behavior of the appellant can be deduced".

"Therefore, the only objection raised by the Administration in its resolutions to reject compliance with good civic conduct is thus ruled out," conclude the Supreme Court magistrates.

Thus, the ruling indicates that with regard to the rest of the concurrent circumstances, it is proven that the appellant, born in Morocco in 1972, is a person who has legally resided in Spain since 1991, more than thirty years ago, who has roots in the country and who suffers from a mental illness diagnosed in 1995, the existence of which has been decisive for the recognition of a pension by final court ruling.

The citizen also lives in a Social Security residence for the sick, has been undergoing psychiatric treatment in Leganés since 1995 and is included in the Continuity of Care Program. He himself is stabilized and is aware of his disease, knows his diagnosis and has the ability to recognize and express moments of decompensation, as well as risk factors and triggers, highlights the TS.

The Supreme Court recalls that it is also accredited that he presents good adherence to outpatient treatment and regularly attends appointments, with good links to his reference psychiatrist and tutor of the Continuity of Care Program.

"From these circumstances it can be inferred that we are dealing with a person who has been socially integrated in Spain for many years and who -according to the report provided- responds positively to the treatment to which he is subjected for his mental illness, maintaining a collaborative attitude with medical personnel to control this disease", adds the Chamber.

On the other hand, the court indicates that both the magistrate in charge of the Civil Registry of Leganés, as well as the social worker, and the social educator of the residence where the interested party lives, and the prosecutor in the case "have expressed themselves in terms favorable to the request of the interested party, showing his good conduct, his adaptation to the style and way of life of the Spanish" and "his acceptable degree of adaptation to the culture and history" of Spain.

The citizen, points out the Supreme Court, has shown "to be fully rooted and to know and accept the Spanish idiosyncrasy, mastering the language and being identified with the social environment in which it operates." "The conclusion can only be that of understanding that in this case compliance with the requirement of good conduct has been sufficiently proven," the ruling states.

The sentence includes a dissenting opinion from Judge Inés Huerta, who argues that the appeal should have been dismissed. And it is that, in his opinion, the appellant suffers from "chronic paranoid schizophrenia, an incurable mental illness, very serious, difficult to manage pharmacologically, which requires tight control in the administration of medications in order to avoid their destabilization."

All of this, adds the judge, "without, even in these cases, excluding the possibility of a psychotic outbreak, which very frequently -not always- manifests itself with aggressive actions -as has happened here--, in to the extent that the delusion focuses on the neighbor".