Non-granting of housing allowance on grounds of the age limit does not constitute a violation of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Šaltinytė v. Lithuania 26.10.2021 (app. no. 32934/19)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation of discrimination on the grounds of age when she had
applied for housing benefit. The courts had refused her application because she had not complied
with the upper age limit of 35 under the relevant domestic law. She had been 37 at the time.
The Court found that the Government had sufficiently justified setting an upper age limit for the
housing benefit in question and the resulting difference in treatment complained of. In particular,
the housing benefit had been aimed at assisting young people financially and encouraging them to
have more children, in the face of a decreasing population caused by emigration and a low birth
rate.
It pointed out that the State had wide discretion to decide on benefits, taking into account social,
demographic and economic factors.
PROVISIONS
Article 6 par.1
Article 14
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Loreta Šaltinytė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Vilnius.
In 2016 Ms Šaltinytė, a single mother and 37 years old at the time, applied for a subsidy available to
“young families” with a low income to buy a first home. The local authorities refused her request
because the relevant domestic law defined “young families” as those in which the parents were no
older than 35.
The applicant and her daughter lodged a complaint with the administrative courts. They argued that
the refusal to grant the applicant the housing subsidy had been based solely on the grounds of her
age and had therefore amounted to discrimination.
Ultimately, in 2018, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the refusal had been justified. It held in particular that the legislature had discretion to decide which categories of persons or families were entitled to which kinds of welfare benefits.
The court also refused to refer her case to the Constitutional Court, finding that there were no
grounds to doubt that the legal regulation was in line with the relevant provisions of the
Constitution.
Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Šaltinytė complained that she had been refused a housing subsidy
solely on the grounds of her age.
She also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that the courts had refused to refer her
case to the Constitutional Court without providing adequate reasons.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of
property)
The Court found that there had been a difference in treatment between persons in relevantly similar
situations on the grounds of age. In particular, the applicant had been in a relevantly similar
situation to a younger single mother who, in the same circumstances, would likely have been
granted the housing subsidy in question.
The Court went on to examine whether that difference in treatment had been justified.
The Government submitted that the housing subsidy in question had been aimed at assisting young
people when acquiring residential property and thus at encouraging a positive demographic shift in
Lithuania, whose population was ageing rapidly and causing various economic and social problems.
The Court accepted that that aim had been legitimate as it was in the public interest. It noted in
particular that the housing subsidy encouraged young people to have more children, and to thus
offset the decrease of the population caused by emigration and a low birth rate observed since the
1990s.
Although it acknowledged the applicant’s argument that all parents who raised small children might
have similar needs for social assistance, irrespective of their age, it also took into account the
difficult task facing the national authorities when allocating limited public resources.
Moreover, the age limit had been based on objective data. The Government submitted statistics
showing that, on average, Lithuanians get married, have their first child and obtain a housing loan
between the ages of 28 and 35.
Nor was it manifestly unreasonable to provide additional social assistance to families of a younger
age, bearing in mind that their financial situation was an important factor influencing their decisions
on whether to emigrate, whether to have children, and when to do so.
Indeed, the applicant had the possibility to obtain social assistance via various other welfare benefits
available to parents and families in Lithuania, for example on the basis of a low income.
The Court concluded that the State had wide discretion when setting age limits for particular
benefits and that, in the circumstances of the applicant’s case, Lithuania had not gone beyond that
discretion.
The difference in treatment had therefore been justified and there had been no violation of
Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
The Court found that the Supreme Administrative Court had made extensive references to the
relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court, examined the applicant’s complaint in the light of the
principles therein and provided detailed reasons for rejecting it. The applicant had therefore been
given the possibility to understand why her request for a referral of her case to the Constitutional
Court had been rejected.
There had accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
