CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ of conditions such as e.g. old age and the absence of relatives, or is already having the status of an old age person sufficient? When finding a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR in the case of Chmil v. Ukraine, the ECtHR considered “the applicant’s age and state of health”. 96 In the judgment in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland , it observed that a person’s age is one of the criteria that should be taken into account in the assessment of whether the ill-treatment attained a minimum level of severity. 97 These cases certify that a person’s age is only one among the other circumstances that should be considered when dealing with a complaint submitted by an elderly person. In the case of Farcaş and Others v. Romania the ECtHR observed that the 72-year-old applicant was elderly and “did not use a computer or have access the Internet”. 98 Given this, the fact that he lived more than 100 km away from the court which delivered the judgment at issue has placed a significant burden on him. 99 The description illustrates that the applicant’s old age was one of the key criteria in addressing a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR. Nonetheless, the other important factors were that he did not have access to the Internet and that the court was situated far from his home. These cumulative factors led to finding a breach of the ECHR, which again confirms that old age does not in itself necessarily speak about a person’s vulnerability. Some persons of an older age, e.g. at sixty, may be in good health, powerful, possess good memory capacity, be rich and be acquainted with modern technologies on a sufficient level. For them, a label of a vulnerable person may even be offensive. They would prefer to conduct most daily activities on their own without any assistance. On the other hand, sometimes people of a much younger age may be more vulnerable due to their state of health or mental capacities. At the same time, it would be wrong to deprive older persons as a group, of essential protections since it has been scientifically proven that with age our health deteriorates and access to new technologies becomes limited. How are we then to find the necessary balance to ensure that those who are in need will obtain required help? In the past, the function of taking care of elderly was usually performed by family members. Nowadays, societies have changed and the states are more involved in the private lives of persons. The situation is also influenced by greater working demands and stronger pressure from our surroundings. Advanced economic development has led to a separation of the family members as everyone may be able to afford to have their own car, house, and/or style of life. People have become freer but also lonelier. A very busy, varied, and more colourful life makes it almost impossible for us to find time to spend time with our parents and grand-parents. Often, we realise what we have missed only when our loved ones are gone. To satisfy the needs of older persons by means of a well-grounded legal framework is definitely an obligation of every modern state. Elderly people who have spent all their lives for the good of society and are not able to work anymore deserve old-age pensions, discounts, and social benefits. Lonely third-age persons should be provided with all the necessary assistance possible to be able to continue their lives with dignity. But when everything is said and done, the best possible social security services cannot compare with the care and love from family and friends. 96 Chmil v. Ukraine , no. 20806/10, § 78, 29 October 2015. 97 Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 118, ECHR 2014 (extracts). 98 Farcaş and Others v. Romania , no. 30502/05, § 36, 5 June 2018. 99 Ibid. , § 38.

280