Конституционный Cуд
12 февраля 2021
№ KT29-N1/2021
Facts
The applicant, the Vilnius Regional Court, applied to the Constitutional Court following the suspension of a civil case concerning the legality of the dismissal of the applicant from his position as the Chief Researcher of Vilnius University (VU) at the end of his fixed-term contract of employment. The applicant was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Vilnius City District Court dismissing the action, noting that all the possibilities provided by law for the extension of the employment relationship after the applicant's 65th birthday had been exhausted.
Complaint
The applicant submits that the limitation of the possibility of extending the employment relationship in the VU Statute relates only to the age of a lecturer or research/artistic staff member of the University, i.e. 65 years, without taking into account whether that age has a significant impact on the professional skills of the staff member or whether the staff member is unable to continue to perform the functions of his/her position (is not fit for office) because of that age. In the applicant's view, the contested legislation potentially infringes the principle of equal treatment of persons in the exercise of the autonomy of higher education institutions guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court's ruling
The Court finds that, while the autonomy of universities is important, it cannot be used as a basis for discrimination against employees on grounds of age. The Statute provides for the possibility of extending the contracts of lecturers over the age of 65, but the decision to do so is taken by the Senate without clear criteria. This gives too much discretion to the Senate and may lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated staff members.
The Court stressed that universities may have their own policies on the age of staff, but such policies must be based on objective and clearly defined criteria. Moreover, it must not be contrary to general principles of employment law and must not be used as a cover for discrimination. The Court stated that this should be revised to ensure that decisions on the renewal of employment contracts are taken in a transparent and reasoned manner. Accordingly, the Court held that the relevant provision of the Statute was unconstitutional.