Intellectual Disability Does Not Mandate Legal Representation in Protective Deprivation of Liberty Appeals

In an administrative appeal concerning protective measures involving deprivation of liberty, the court held that a person's mere intellectual disability does not automatically entitle them to the appointment of a legal representative, even though such deprivation is a serious measure. The court reasoned that the legislature intentionally refrained from making legal representation mandatory in such welfare proceedings because the process operates primarily under the official principle, not requiring specialized legal knowledge from the person being assisted. Therefore, the appointment of a legal representative must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the judge, and in the present case, no special circumstances warranted the assignment of free legal counsel, as the appellant was capable of pursuing the appeal effectively on their own.