CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ elderly person’s travel permit, which would have entitled him to free travel on most public transport in Greater London. 80 His application was rejected because, under British law at the time, such a permit could only be provided to men who were aged 65 or over, whereas women were eligible to receive such a permit at the age of 60. The ECtHR did not rule on a violation of Article 14 in this case as the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. Two elderly sisters who had lived together all of their lives in the case of Burden v. the United Kingdom complained that unlike the survivor of a marriage, when one of them dies the survivor will face a heavy inheritance tax bill. 81 They relied on Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that the applicants as cohabiting sisters cannot be compared for the purposes of Article 14 to married or civil partnership couples and that there was no discrimination in this case. Conversely, a view from the opposite side was examined by the ECtHR in the case of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia. 82 The applicants complained that the fact that they had been sentenced to life imprisonment exposed them to discriminatory treatment on account of their age, in breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 5 of the ECHR. They explained that, as opposed to persons aged under 18 or over 65 on whom a sentence of life imprisonment may not be imposed, the law envisages for them a different and less favourable treatment. The ECtHR responded that the relevant domestic provision excluding offenders aged 65 or over from life imprisonment had an objective and reasonable justification. The purpose of that provision in principle coincided with the interests underlying the eligibility for early release after the first twenty-five years. Reduction of a life sentence carried greater weight for elderly offenders in order not to become a mere illusory possibility. As previously stated, this paper will not discuss the rights of older persons envisaged in the Protocols to the ECHR. Although, it is absolutely clear that these rights may be of great importance. Some examples are the right to property, 83 voting rights 84 , or the right to continuous education of elderly. 85 Those issues might become a subject for future research. The current study will continue by summarising the main ideas involving the legal standing of older persons in proceedings before the ECtHR. 4. Special status of older persons in the proceedings before the ECtHR The practice reveals that the ECtHR deals with the applications lodged with it on a case by case basis. The situation of each applicant is different and even very tiny alterations in the circumstances of the cases may lead to totally different conclusions. This, however, does not mean there are not any general rules that should be complied with. Every submission must satisfy certain admissibility criteria. Nonetheless, under extraordinary circumstances, the ECtHR may allow certain exceptions from its procedural rules as it did in the case of Câmpeanu . 86 These exceptions are often motivated by the person’s vulnerability. 80 Michael Matthews v. the United Kingdom (friendly settlement), no. 40302/98, § 10, 15 July 2002. 81 Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 52, ECHR 2008. 82 Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, 24 January 2017. 83 Klaus and Iouri Kiladzé v. Georgia , no. 7975/06, 2 February 2010. 84 Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts). 85 MIKOŁAJCZYK, Barbara. Is the ECHR ready for global ageing? The international journal of human rights , vol. 17, no. 4 (May 2013), p. 518. 86 Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014. In

278