Denial of right to legal aid

Facts

The author is a Lithuanian national. She worked as a cloakroom attendant and a cleaner for a public library and her work consisted of picking up heavy clothes and bags. She has a physical disability in the form of spinal pathology. On 15 October 2012, she was dismissed from service due to her disability. According to the author, her spinal pathology predated her employment and that her employer did not conduct any medical assessment before employing her. She applied for legal aid services alleging that due to the heavy lifting, she acquired an occupational disease resulting in her to lose 55 percent of her working capacity. The Legal Aid Service rejected her application finding that no occupational disease could be established and that she lost 55 per cent of her working ability due to illegal acts by her employer on the basis of the documents supplied by her.

She appealed this decision to the Regional Administrative Authority which dismissed her appeal finding that her disability predated her employment and that she failed to prove that her employment caused her disability. It was also noted by the Regional Administrative Authority that the author first needed to challenge the non-recognition of her occupational disease by the competent authority to be eligible for legal aid. The author’s appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania also failed where it was held that the author did not provide the Legal Aid Service the required evidence to prove that her health issues were caused due to her employment and as a result the primary legal requirements were not met. The author then submitted an application before the European Court of Human rights where it was held in 2015 that her application was manifestly illfounded and was declared inadmissible. The author submitted the present communication to the Committee alleging violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee agreed with the observations of the State party where it was submitted that the author failed to refute the State party’s argument regarding the possibility of requesting for a primary aid (a means to receive legal information and advice). Instead, she requested for a secondary aid where her application was rejected owing to the fact that she had not been recognized as having an occupational disease by the competent authority, which is a prerequisite for instituting a claim for damages against an employer. Committee found that the author’s claim had been insufficiently substantiated as it did not explain why primary legal aid would not have been available to her or whether she considered the primary legal aid scheme not to fulfil the requirements of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. Additionally, the Committee, while noting the author’s allegation that domestic remedies available to her were presented vaguely, found that the author failed to indicate the same in her initial submissions before the State party was asked to provide its observations on admissibility and merits before the Committee. Therefore, the Committee found that the claim constituted an abuse of the right of submission and that it was insufficiently substantiated. In conclusion, the communication was declared inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.