Information Note on the Court’s case-law 255
October 2021
Šaltinytė v. Lithuania - 32934/19
Judgment 26.10.2021 [Section II]
Article 14
Discrimination
Upper age limit (35 years) for eligibility for “young families” housing subsidy based on objective data and justified: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a single mother of a minor child, was refused a housing subsidy available to “young families” of low income when buying their first home, as she was over the upper age-limit of thirty-five years prescribed by the Housing Assistance Act when she had lodged her request. She unsuccessfully brought proceedings for discrimination before the administrative courts.
Law – Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant fulfilled the first two legal requirements for the subsidy, namely, her income had been under the set threshold and she had sought to buy her first home. Her application, however, had been refused because of her age – if she had been younger, she would have been granted the subsidy. Accordingly, her complaint fell within the scope of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 was thus applicable.
(a) Whether there was a difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations – The Court replied in the affirmative. As the other legal requirements had been fulfilled, the differential treatment had been on the grounds of age. Taking note of the applicant’s argument that all parents, regardless of their age, might have similar needs when raising small children, the Court was prepared to accept that she had been in a relevantly similar situation to a younger single mother who, in the same circumstances, would have likely been granted the housing subsidy in question.
(b) Whether the difference in treatment was justified – The Housing Assistance Act provided for different types of housing assistance and there were various other welfare benefits that were available to parents and families in Lithuania. There were no grounds to find that the applicant had been left without any possibility to obtain social assistance, should she require it. The present case was limited to the examination of the specific housing subsidy granted to “young families” as defined in the domestic law, and in particular, whether by limiting the eligibility for the said subsidy to those parents whose age did not exceed thirty-five years the respondent State had complied with the requirements of Article 14.
(i) Legitimate aim – It had been sufficiently established that by granting the impugned housing subsidy to people of a younger age the national authorities had sought to encourage them to have more children and thereby offset the decrease of the population caused by emigration and low birth rate. The Court was thus prepared to accept that the measure pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest.
(ii) Proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised – When examining the proportionality of the choices made by the national authorities in the area of social security and welfare, the specific national context could not be disregarded. A steady decline of the Lithuanian population had been observed since the 1990s, caused mainly by high rates of emigration, especially among young people, and a low birth rate. The decreasing number of children and the ageing population thus had been legitimate causes of concern to the national authorities, which had to seek ways of altering the demographic trends by employing various measures within their powers. Although this had not been disputed by the applicant, she argued that age could not be legitimately used as the sole criterion for determining eligibility for the housing subsidy in question.
The Court was mindful of the possibly similar needs of parents who raised small children, for social assistance, regardless of their age, but also of the domestic authorities’ difficult task when allocating limited public resources and the need to set certain limits to eligibility for specific welfare benefits. In view of their familiarity with the demands made on the social security system, as well as with the funds available to meet those demands, the national authorities were in a better position than an international court to carry out an assessment of the priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources. The States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation when it came to general measures of economic or social strategy and the Court would respect the legislature’s choice if reasonable and suited to achieving the legitimate aim being pursued.
According to the information provided by the Government there was a lack of consensus among various Contracting States when deciding whether to grant any housing assistance at all or when determining the conditions of eligibility for such assistance and some had established upper age limits for its recipients. In the Court’s view the Lithuanian legislature’s decision to provide additional social assistance to families constituted of persons of a younger age could not, in and of itself, be seen as manifestly without reasonable foundation, having regard to the fact that young people’s financial situation was an important factor influencing their decisions on whether to emigrate, whether to have children, and when to do so. Moreover, bearing in mind that the statistical data provided by the Government, showed that, on average, Lithuanians got married, had their first child and obtained a housing loan between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-five, the impugned age limit of thirty-five years had been reasonably based on objective data, and not on general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes, as alleged by the applicant. Lastly, that age limit had been revised to thirty-six years in the light of more recent data. Indeed, it was important that the legal regulation, even if it aimed at encouraging people to have children at a younger age, adequately reflected the actual demographic situation in the country.
Accordingly, the State had not overstepped its wide margin of appreciation and there had been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the impugned difference in treatment and the legitimate aim sought.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously)
The Court also found, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as the Supreme Administrative Court had given sufficient reasoning in its decision dismissing the applicant’s request for referral to the Constitutional Court.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes