CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   Published on 3 April 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4455/22 Leonidas SAKALAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 24 December 2021 communicated on 16 March 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had been dismissed from an academic post at the university because of his age, this having amounted to discrimination. The applicant was born in 1947. In 1974 he started working at what is currently the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, which as of 2010 is part of Vilnius University. He was a senior, and later principal, scientific researcher. In 2012 the applicant became 65 years old. At that time the Vilnius University Statute provided that upon such age lecturers or scientists may continue working at the university, provided that the Senate of the university concludes a fixed-term contract with them for up to three years, such a contract could be prolonged once. On that basis, the applicant’s work contract with the university was extended twice, in June 2013 and in August 2016, enabling the applicant to work at the university until 31   August 2018, the day on which the applicant’s fixed-term employment at the university was terminated. The applicant started court proceedings, arguing that he had been dismissed on discriminatory grounds – because of his age, and not because he lacked professional qualifications. His claim was dismissed by the Vilnius City District Court. The applicant appealed. On 27   June 2019 the Vilnius Regional Court asked the Constitutional Court whether legal regulation, based on Article   15 §   9 of the Vilnius University Statute, which provided that the employment could not be prolonged beyond 65 years of age, irrespective of whether that age had an impact on the professional capacities of the person, was not discriminatory. By a ruling of 12   February 2021 the Constitutional Court held that establishing the maximum age limit, 65   years, up to which scientists or lecturers could normally work at Vilnius University, one of the oldest and most renowned universities in Central and Eastern Europe, should be considered a necessary and proportionate measure to achieve the constitutionally important objective of ensuring quality in higher education. The age limit served to secure a consistent and optimal change of scientists and lecturers in order to encourage younger qualified scientists and lecturers to work at Vilnius University. It was applicable to all lecturers or researchers at Vilnius University who have reached that age. Thus, Article 15 § 9 of the Vilnius University Statute, insofar as it established a maximum age limit, beyond which lecturers or researchers could work at the university only by way of exception, did not breach the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age, enshrined in Article   29 of the Constitution. That being so, the Constitutional Court also held that Article 15 § 9 of the Statute did not indicate the criteria according to which it could be decided to extend the employment contract after the age of 65, which had made that provision unconstitutional. Afterwards, on 1   April 2021 the Vilnius Regional Court referred to the Constitutional Court’s findings and held that the applicant’s dismissal upon having reached 65   years of age could not be considered as discriminatory. The Regional Court noted that on 11   June 2013 and on 14   June 2016 the Senate had twice applied an exception in the applicant’s case and renewed his contracts by six years in total. Accordingly, the second part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling had been irrelevant for the applicant’s complaint. The Vilnius Regional Court also noted that, under Article   20 §   3 of the Vilnius University Statute, a long-time university lecturer, who had reached pension age, could be granted the affiliated scientist’s honorary name, and to maintain scientific and pedagogical relations with the university. Such name having been granted to the applicant on 19   December 2017, the applicant could maintain links with the university and implement his scientific goals. By a final ruling of 17   August 2021 the Supreme Administrative Court refused to accept the applicant’s appeal on points of law, as raising no important legal issues. The applicant complains, under Article   14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   8 thereof, that his employment was terminated exclusively because of his age, and that there had been no legal basis for termination of his employment. The applicant considers that he is facing a lifelong ban on being employed as a researcher.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see Ballıktaş Bingöllü v. Turkey , no.   76730/12, §§   56-58, 22   June 2021)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his age, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article   8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania , nos.   55480/00 and 59330/00, §§   51 and 52 in limine , ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII, and Šaltinytė v. Lithuania , no.   32934/19, §§   63 and 64, 26   October 2021)? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   REQUEST FOR INFORMATION   The parties are requested to provide information regarding legal acts regulating extension of contracts beyond 65 years of age at Vilnius University, and in other Lithuanian universities, where that is the case. They are also requested to comment whether the practice of extending contracts beyond 65 years of age is uniform in all faculties of Vilnius University.