European Court of Human Rights Dismisses Age Discrimination Claim

By: William Matthew Krueger

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

VILNIUS, Lithuania – On October 26, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Housing Act was reasonable and did not discriminate based on age.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. Photo Courtesy of Lithuanian Courts.

On January 1, 2015, the Housing Assistance Act came into effect. The Act provided three types of housing assistance: subsidies that would cover a portion of a home loan, a right to rent housing from the State, and partial rebates of rent payments. Article 8 of the Act defines two general conditions for an individual or family to qualify for subsidies to cover a portion of a home loan.

First, the annual income of the individual or family must not exceed the threshold provided in other provisions of the Housing Assistance Act. Second, they must be seeking their first home in Lithuania or alternatively, should not have owned residential property during five years prior and did not previously receive this form of assistance; that the residential property currently owned falls underneath a legally established threshold; or the individual or family member(s) have a disability and the home is not adapted to fit the individual’s needs.

Furthermore, the applying individual had to fit in one of many categories just to qualify for the home loan.

In 2016, Loreta Šaltinytė, a single mother with a four-year daughter, applied for a housing subsidy available to lower income “young families” who were buying their first home. Šaltinytė’s application was denied by municipal authorities on the grounds that she was thirty-seven at the time of her application.

Soon, Šaltinytė filed a complaint with the administrative courts, alleging that the refusal of the housing subsidy was age discrimination, which was prohibited by Lithuania’s Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Šaltinytė also asked for her claim to be referred to the Constitutional Court, which was dismissed. In addition, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed Šaltinytė’s complaint on the grounds that legislature has discretion to limit who qualifies for welfare benefits.

In an appeal, Šaltinytė stated the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court failed to address the potential conflict between the Act, the Constitution, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appeal was dismissed on December 6, 2018 by the Supreme Administrative Court based on precedent from the Constitutional Court that permits legal regulation of certain categories of persons, the State has wide discretion when performing social assistance and has an obligation to service the most vulnerable members of society. The Court also held that the Act was not built solely on age parameters.

In the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, Šaltinytė alleged a violation of Articles 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 14 states that discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status is prohibited. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 states that every legal person is “entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” except in cases where the public interest is at risk and such a right is subject to other legal conditions. Šaltinytė alleges that Lithuania failed to demonstrate a reason for establishing the cut-off age at thirty-five.

In response, Lithuania stated that the purpose of the relevant portion of the Housing Assistance Act was not as a general form of welfare, but as a way of assisting younger people to acquire property and hopefully reverse the decline of the working population. Finally, Lithuania stated that at the time Šaltinytė had her daughter she could have applied as she met the definition of “young family.”

The Court found that this difference in treatment was legitimate as the Act intended to encourage younger people to have children and reduce potential emigration. Secondly, the Act was based on statistical data gathered by Lithuania and possessed a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the treatment based on age and the goal of Lithuania.

The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 14 or Article 6, Section 1 of the Convention.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – European Convention on Human Rights – 1 Aug. 2021.

European Court of Human Rights – Case of Šaltinytė v. Lithuania – 26 Oct. 2021.

European Union – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – 26 Oct. 2012.

Republic of Lithuania – Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania – 25 Oct. 1992.

Leader of West African Terrorist Group is Dead

By Alexis Eka

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

On Thursday, October 16, 2021, the head of Nigeria’s armed forces, Military Commander and Chief of Defense, General Lucky Irabor announced that a key figure in the West African terrorist group, Abu Musab al-Barnawi, had passed away. Al-Barnawi was said to be the son of Boko Haram’s late founder Mohammed Yusuf.

Islamic State West Africa Provenience (“ISWAP”) has been regarded as the most prominent jihadist group in Nigeria since the death of Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau that occurred earlier this year. After Shekau’s father died in law enforcement’s custody, Shekau was appointed the group’s new leader. And after, Shekau’s death, Barnawi was said to be the leader of the ISWAP. 

ISWAP is a splinter of Boko Haram, a terrorist group that has killed several thousands of people, kidnapped students, and added to the increasing homeless population in Nigeria. ISWAP has been fighting against the Nigerian armed forces for about 12 years. ISWAP has primarily focused on its attacks on the Nigerian military as opposed to Boko Haram who has terrorized several other groups. However, in Nigeria, the ISWAP insurgency group is still referred to as the “Mamman Nur Faction,” a term coined by West Africans explaining that they are still under the control of Boko Haram.

The two militant groups have been at conflict with each other for several years, until ISWAP became Boko Haram’s successor. The conflict between Boko Haram and ISWAP and the insurgents in Nigeria’s armed forces has spread to neighboring countries, Cameroon and Chad, and has left about 300,000 people dead and millions of Nigerian citizens injured.

Ibrahim Awami, an individual who was kidnapped by ISWAP in 2016 and forced to join the ISWAP insurgency, said that “the death of Shekau will not be the end of insurgency in the Northeastern region.” Awami escaped from the ISWAP insurgency less than a month ago and indicated that there are several Shekaus that are still seeking to abduct other west Africans and enlist them into the ISWAP insurgency. ISWAP stated that often, there are fights that break out for power between the ISWAP members, sometimes resulting in their deaths.

For more information, please see:

AP News – Nigerian Military says Leader of IS-Linked Group is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021. 

BBC News – Nigeria Says ISWAP Leader Abu Musab al-Barnawi is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021.

New York Times – Leader of West African Terrorist group is Dead, Nigerian Army Says – 14 Oct. 2021. 

Reuters – Nigerian General Says Leader of Islamic State West Africa is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021.

Supreme Court to Hear First Pre-Viability Abortion Case Since Roe v. Wade

By: Anna E. Melo     

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to evaluate the constitutionality of a Mississippi law restricting access to abortion in most situations after 15 weeks of gestation-period. The Department of Health in Mississippi seeks to overturn previously decided landmark abortion cases ensuring a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy up to fetal viability (defined as where a growing fetus would be able to survive ex utero). With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, proponents for women’s reproductive rights anxiously await a decision that may transform the landscape of accessible healthcare in the United States.

Pro-choice advocates protest outside of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. Photo by REUTERS/Tom Brenner.

For nearly 50 years, the holdings of cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have established that the 4th and 14th Amendments support a woman’s right of privacy to choose to terminate a pregnancy without unnecessary barriers. Subsequently, some state legislatures have sought to impose restrictions dictating the limited circumstances whereby a woman would be allowed to receive the procedure.

In 1972, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act which is full of language directed towards the potential emotional and physical harm caused by abortion procedures. It describes various fetal developments week by week up to the ‘cut off gestational age’ of 15 weeks (two weeks into the second trimester). The only exceptions past this threshold point that the Act allows for are medical emergencies or in cases of severe fetal abnormality (notably excluding instances of rape and incest). Physicians are tasked with reporting each abortion procedure conducted under oath, with the threat of civil penalties and/or license suspension or revocation for noncompliance with the provisions of the Act.

Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the last operating abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi, leaving women, especially the poor and minorities, with very few opportunities to obtain the procedure.

Jackson Women’s Health sued the State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health to challenge the Gestational Age Act in 2018 on the merits that a pre-viability ban on abortion is unconstitutional. The district court for the Southern District of Mississippi found that the restrictive obstacles the Act imposes on women were unlawful. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the Act was unconstitutional in 2019. The State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health and the Executive Director of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure appealed the 5th circuits decision, to which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari.

The topic of abortion is inherently contentious. It invites arguments and counterarguments concerning religion, philosophy, politics, and medicine. A case on the Supreme Court’s docket, especially in 2021, may leave more questions than answers.  Will advancements in medicine naturally shift ‘fetal viability’ earlier into a pregnancy?  Will an outright overturn of predominant case law in women’s and reproductive rights cause a domino effect in various conservative states to ban abortion altogether or the adoption of certain restrictions such as the ‘Heartbeat Bill’ at six weeks gestation?  Will we see action by Congress in an attempt to implement federal law that counters prohibitory state actions? In the next few months, the Supreme Court will be tasked with balancing these delicate matters that will have an undoubted impact on the status of women’s health and human rights in the United States.

For more information, please see:

5th Circuit – Decision Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 – Dec. 13, 2019.   

Mississippi Gestational Age Act – Current through 2021.  

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi – Decision Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 349 F. Supp. 3d 536 – Nov. 20, 2018.

United States Supreme Court – Decision Granting Motion for Certiorari Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oct. 12, 2021.

The European Court of Human Rights Vindicates Dismissed Bulgarian Judge on Grounds of Freedom of Expression

By: Angelica Judge

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of Miroslava Todorova, a Bulgarian judge, on October 19, 2021 regarding a violation of her freedom of expression.

Photograph of Judge Miroslava Todorova. Photo Courtesy of noinvite.com.

Todorova is a judge in the criminal division of Sofia City Court in Bulgaria, and was elected president of the Bulgarian union of Judges (BUJ) in 2009.  During that time, she was publically critical of certain leadership decisions and statements within the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

A proposal was brought to the SJC Inspector General in July of 2011 for disciplinary proceedings to be instated against judges with a backlog of cases – with Todorova being named as one such judge. She suffered a salary reduction followed later by dismissal, and after a series of appeals, her case came before the ECtHR.

She alleged several claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the court found that her Article 10 right to freedom of expression had been violated. The court argued that “Those proceedings and sanctions could… have had a chilling effect on the applicant’s exercise of her freedom of expression and on that of all members of the national judiciary,” as a result of her previous comments criticizing the SJC. In coming to this decision, the court weighed what they felt to be an inadequate showing by the domestic authorities that the sanctions here were “necessary and appropriate to the legitimate aims pursued in the case.”  

The ECtHR recognized that judges still must be subject to appropriate sanctions following breaches of professional duty due to exercising their right to freedom of expression. However, if the discipline is suspected of being retaliatory, the domestic authorities must show that the sanctions were legitimate.  

Todorova had several other claims that were either unsuccessful, or were read in conjunction with the Article 10 violation. For example, the court did not find that there was a violation to Article 8 of the Convention, which provides for an individual’s right to respect for their private and family life. The basis for this claim was that the disciplinary proceedings caused significant media coverage that may have damaged her reputation. However, the court found that the media coverage was fairly balanced in terms of positive and negative attention. Proving this violation requires a standard of severity that the court felt was lacking.

Despite Todorova being unsuccessful in some of her claims, the court unanimously agreeing that there was a violation of her freedom of expression is a significant victory after a legal battle that had lasted for several years.

For further Information, please see:

American Society of International Law – ECtHR Issues Two Judgments on Freedom of Expression – 19 Oct. 2021

EU Law Live – Disciplinary proceedings against Bulgarian judge Miroslava Todorova breached freedom of expression ECtHR rules – 19 Oct. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – European Convention on Human Rights – 2 Oct. 2013

European Court of Human Rights – Disciplinary Proceedings Against and Sanctions Imposed on the Applicant, a Judge and President of the Bulgarian Union of Judges, Violated her Right to Freedom of Expression – 19 Oct. 2021

Radio Bulgaria – Judge Miroslava Todorova wins case against Bulgaria at the European Court of Human Rights – 19 Oct. 2021

Azerbaijani Government’s Act of Gagging Opposition Activists Violates Freedom of Expression

By: Ositadinma Nwosu

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – Activists against the Azerbaijani Government submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (the Chamber) for the determination on whether the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) was violated by the government. The Chamber found for the applicants.

Azeri riot policemen detain protestors in central Baku, Azerbaijan on Jan. 26, 2013. Photo Courtesy of Tofik Babayev/AFP/Getty Images.

The opposition activists are members of Nida and Free Youth Organization, civic movements founded in 2011 in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, whose aim was to defend the constitutional and human rights of Azerbaijanis, preserve democratic values, increase the socio-political activeness of young people, and advocate for the rights of students in Azerbaijan. The organizations have most agitated for political change in the country and the applicants, in particular, were extremely vocal in their opposition against the government of Azerbaijan.

In 2013, with an intention to sensitize the public of their rights, especially as provided for in Chapter 1 of the Azerbaijan Constitution, the applicants distributed leaflets at an underground station in Baku and were arrested and detained by the police.

They were found to be guilty, after their rights to legal representation were denied, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison for pasting and handing out anti-government leaflets and for disobeying a lawful order given by a police officer. The applicants’ appeal to the Baku Court of Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the lower court was upheld.   

Presenting their arguments before the Chamber, the applicants submitted that their right to freedom of expression in Article 10 was violated when they were arrested, detained, and convicted for distributing leaflets which did not contain any expression against the public or the interests of national security. On the other hand, the government argued that the arrest and arraignment of the applicants was due to public disorder and noise caused by the distribution of the leaflets, and not related to their freedom of expression. It is important to note that this argument by the government was neither raised at the domestic courts nor supported by any evidence before the Chamber.

The Chamber found that there was an unlawful interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10, §2 of the Convention which provides that any interference must be prescribed by law. The Chamber found that the leaflets distributed by the applicants did not contain any speech or ideas prohibited by Azerbaijani domestic law and subsequently, they should not have been charged under it. Therefore, the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicants was not justified and it was more of an attempt by the government to silence opposition since the applicants were members of the major opposition organizations.

The Chamber awarded the sum of €5,850 to each applicant as non-pecuniary damage but refused their claim for cost and expenses since they did not support these claims with necessary documents. The Chamber further noted that it had dealt with similar cases involving the government of Azerbaijan and members of the Nida and Free Youth Organization, and the government’s actions in these cases illustrate a pattern.

For further information, please see:

Free Youth Organization – About FYO – accessed on 22 Oct. 2021.

Open Democracy – Meet N!DA, the exclamation mark that terrified the Azerbaijani authorities – 25 May 2016.

Refworld – Azerbaijan: Three youth activists sentenced and four detained ahead of presidential election – 17 July 2013.

The European Court of Human Rights – Case of HASANOV AND MAJIDLI v. AZERBAIJAN – 7 Oct. 2021.