legal capacity, supported decision-making, relational autonomy, social work, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Background and purpose: The recognition of legal capacity is a pressing issue across Europe in the aftermath of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While many countries have reformed their legislation, practical implementation remains uneven, and paternalistic approaches persist. The Czech Republic offers a pertinent case study: the 2014 Civil Code reform formally moved from deprivation to limitation of legal capacity and acknowledged supported decision-making as an alternative to guardianship. Yet juridical practice often continues to rely on substitute decision-making and expert psychiatric opinions, with limited recognition of autonomy. This paper situates the Czech experience within the broader European debate and examines how social work research of juridical practice can support the role of social workers in safeguarding autonomy and strengthening supported decision-making. This study directly engages with the conference theme by showing how empirical legal analysis can inform social work practice and policy development and how research on judicial practice can be translated into methodological tools and advocacy strategies. The study is based in the concept of relational autonomy and in empirical findings from other studies (Lindsey, 2020, Dibbets et al., 2021). By bridging law and social work, the paper highlights opportunities for informed interdisciplinary practice that safeguards autonomy of people with disabilities. Methods: The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of 103 anonymised decisions of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concerning legal capacity restrictions. We focused on the reasoning that led to the annulment of lower-court judgments, with particular attention to how evidence was used, whether supported decision-making measures were considered, and to what extent social work assessments were incorporated. Cases were thematically coded and analysed against the frameworks of supported decision-making and relational autonomy. Findings: The analysis revealed recurring institutional barriers. Lower courts relied heavily on psychiatric expertise, often with minimal engagement of the person concerned and little use of social work reports. Although the Supreme Court frequently emphasized proportionality, individualisation, and the search for less restrictive alternatives, the absence of structured social work input limited the possibility of balanced, evidence-informed judgments. These findings resonate with research from other European contexts, where similar tensions between law, medicine, and social work have been documented. Conclusions and implications: The Czech case reflects a broader European challenge: legal reforms inspired by the CRPD are not sufficient without parallel changes in institutional culture, interdisciplinary cooperation, and professional practice. Social workers are well placed to advocate for autonomy by providing structured assessments that bring forward the lived realities, capacities, and support networks of persons with disabilities. To achieve this, they need methodological tools, institutional recognition, and closer interdisciplinary collaboration.