Do unlawfully residing migrants have a right to

housing under the European Social Charter?

Pavlo Malyuta i

June 2015

ELSA International Essay Competition on Social Rights i i

 

 

2  

List of abbreviations

The Committee European Committee on Social Rights

The Charter Revised European Social Charter

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

The UN Committee UN Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Covenant United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ECHR European Convention of Human Rights

UN United Nations

 

 

3  

Introduction

Irregular migrants are viewed as one of the most vulnerable groups in the world today.1

The question of their protection creates great tensions between notions of state sovereignty and

the universality of human rights. Irregular migrants are usually denied entitlement to basic social

rights in most countries. Recently, consensus has been emerging that they should be eligible for

basic social guarantees in the country of presence. This question is especially pressing for

Europe, which is a destination for hundreds of undocumented migrants every year. Since states

are usually reluctant to progress in this sphere, international and regional mechanisms play a

decisive role in the recognition of irregular migrants’ rights. European Social Charter is the most

significant regional instrument in the sphere of social rights. European Committee of Social

Rights, which is responsible for interpreting the Charter, has not remained aside the

developments in the area of irregular migrants’ protection.

1. Right to housing in the Charter

Revised European Social Charter is the only international instrument that contains

provision specifically addressing housing rights, i.e. Article 31 deals exclusively with the right to

housing. It reads as follows:

With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to housing, the Parties

undertake to take measures designed:

1. to promote access to housing of an adequate standard;

2. to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination;

3. to make the price of housing accessible to those without adequate resources.

In addition to this, housing obligations are also established in the context of other

provisions of the Charter. Particularly, they can be found in Article 15 in relation to physically

and mentally disabled persons, Article 16 as a part of the right of the family to social, legal and

economic protection, Article 17 dealing with children and young persons, Article 13 granting a

right to emergency shelter, Article 19 granting migrant workers the

                                                                                                                         1 There is a diverse terminology used in connection with unlawfully residing migrants: illegal, irregular, undocumented, unauthorized, etc. The essay will predominantly employ the term ‘irregular migrants’.

 

 

4  

right to be treated equally in relation to access to housing, Article 23 setting the right of elderly

persons to provision of housing suited to their needs and state of health.

2. Expansive interpretation of the Charter’s personal scope

The text of European Social Charter employs universalist language of fundamental rights.

In its first part the Charter declares that ‘everyone’ has the right to housing. However, the

Appendix significantly narrows the set of entitlement and restricts the scope of the Charter,

providing that the Articles 1 to 17 and 20 to 31 should be applied to foreigners ‘only in so far as

they are nationals of other Parties lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of

the Party concerned’. Thus, from a textual standpoint, in order to enjoy rights under the Charter

foreigner must satisfy three conditions:

1. be a national of one of the 38 parties to the Charter or the Revised Charter;

2. be lawfully resident, in other words be authorised to enter and reside in the state's

territory;

3. and/or be working regularly, in other words be authorised to enter and work in the

state's territory.2

Nonetheless, the situation is not as straightforward as it might seem at the first glance.

The Committee noted that the restriction of the Appendix applies to a wide range of social rights

and has different impact on them.3 In certain cases and under certain circumstances, the

provisions of the Charter may be applied to migrants in an irregular situation.4 Thus, the

applicability of certain provisions to particular groups of individuals, in principle excluded by the

Appendix, has to be examined on case by case basis, taking into account specific circumstances

of the situation.

3. Principal case-law5

Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, decision of 28 October 2009

The case concerned rights of children unlawfully residing in the Netherlands. The

Committee concluded that ‘children unlawfully present on the territory of a State Party do

                                                                                                                         2 European Committee of Social Rights, ‘Digest of the Case Law of the European Committee of Social Rights’ (ECSR 2008) 181 3 FIDH v France Comp no 14/2003 (ECSR, 8 September 2004) [30] 4 DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012) [35] 5 The content of cases is examined as far as it is relevant for the topic of the essay

 

 

5  

not come within the personal scope of Article 31(1)’.6 It was held that Article 31(2) applies to

children, irrespective of their residence status and obliges states to ‘provide adequate shelter to

children unlawfully present in their territory for as long as they are in their jurisdiction’.7 The

Committee stated that obligations related to the provision of shelter are the same under Article

31(2) and 17(1)(�).

The Netherlands was found in violation of Articles 31(2) and 17(1)(c).

DCI v. Belgium, decision of 23 October 2012

The complaint concerned illegally resident unaccompanied and accompanied foreign

minors. The Committee held that ‘the part of Article 16 relating to the right of families to decent

housing and particularly the right not to be deprived of shelter applies to foreign families

unlawfully present in the country’.8

Conference of European Churches (CEC) v. the Netherlands, decision of 1 July 2014

The subject of the case concerned the right of undocumented adult migrants to, inter alia,

shelter. The Committee concluded that Article 13(4) applies to irregular migrants and obliges

states to ensure emergency shelter for them. It was held that irregular migrants come with the

scope of Article 31(2) and was acknowledged that ‘In light of the Committee’s established case-

law, shelter must be provided also to adult migrants in an irregular situation (…)’.9

The Netherlands was found in violation of Articles 13(4) and 31(2).

European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. the

Netherlands, decision of 2 July 2014

This case only partially concerned migrants in an irregular situation. The Committee

reiterated that both Article 31(2) and 13(4) apply to irregular migrants.

In the relevant case-law outlined above the Committee firstly examined the applicability

of the Charter provisions relating to the right to housing to specific group of irregular migrants,

namely, children, and later went on to unlawfully residing migrants as a

                                                                                                                         6 DCI v the Netherlands Comp no 47/2008 (ECSR, 20 October 2009) [45] 7 ibid [48], [64] 8 DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012) [136] 9 CEC v the Netherlands Comp no 90/2013 (ECSR, 1 July 2014) [144]

 

 

6  

whole. In the very first case in 2009 the Committee made it clear that right to adequate housing

under Article 31(1) does not apply to illegally present children. Since children as a group

generally enjoy higher level of protection, inapplicability of Article 31(1) to them means that

irregular migrants as a whole do not fall within the scope of this provision. It was, however,

admitted that children enjoy right to shelter under Article 31(2). Thus, later cases concerned right

to shelter, which forms a part of different provisions of the Charter, particularly Articles 31(2),

13(4), 16, 17(1)(c). In CEC v. the Netherlands and FEANTSA v. the Netherlands the Committee

explicitly recognized that irregular migrants enjoy the right to shelter under the Charter.

4. Right to adequate housing (Article 31(1)) v. right to shelter (Article 31(2))

Under Article 31 states are obliged to promote access to housing of an adequate standard

(para 1) and to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination (para 2).

The reduction of homelessness in the second paragraph was interpreted to imply, among other

measures, the provision of shelter.10 In order to ensure the right to adequate housing under

Article 31(1) states have to provide persons with living conditions of higher quality in

comparison with the right to shelter under Article 31(2).

Shelter is required ‘to meet health, safety and hygiene standards and, in particular, be

equipped with basic amenities (…) in order to ensure that the dignity of the persons sheltered is

respected’.11 Shelter is temporary in nature and does not have to meet the same requirements of

‘privacy, family life and suitability’ as more permanent forms of standard housing.12 Moreover,

adequate housing, unlike shelter, includes a legal guarantee of security of tenancy.13 Following

such considerations, in DCI v the Netherlands the Committee explained that the rejection of

adequate housing does not automatically mean that persons are denied basic care needed to

avoid living in intolerable conditions.14 In that judgement the Committee referred to the

Recommendation of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe on the

implementation of the right to housing of June 2009

                                                                                                                         10 FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007) [101] 11 DCI v the Netherlands Comp no 47/2008 (ECSR, 20 October 2009) [62] 12 ibid 13 ibid [44] 14 ibid

 

 

7  

where temporary shelter was considered as the minimum housing that corresponds with human

dignity and the one from which all people should be able to benefit.

Therefore, the Committee adopted minimalist approach to the interpretation of the right

to housing of irregular migrants. They are only entitled to shelter with standards capable of

ensuring human dignity.

5. Argumentation of the Committee

In cases indicated above the Committee applied in principle the same approach to the

interpretation of the Appendix and applicability of relevant provisions dealing with the right to

shelter to irregular migrants. This section aims to identify and analyse its crucial points.

5.1. Teleological approach to the interpretation of the Charter

The Committee interprets the Charter on the basis of Article 31(1) of the Vienna

Convention on the Law of Treaties which states, inter alia, that treaty should be interpreted ‘in

the light of its object and purpose’.15

The aim of the Charter is to ‘implement at the European level (…) the rights guaranteed

to all human beings by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948’.16 The purpose of

the Charter ‘is to give life and meaning in Europe to the fundamental social rights of all human

beings’.17 Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, ‘Everyone has the right

to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including

(…) housing’. Article 2 stipulates that everyone is entitled to all the rights contained in the

Declaration ‘without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour…or other status’. It was

explained that the Charter should be interpreted in a way that is the most appropriate to realize

its aim, ‘not that which would restrict to the greatest possible degree the obligations undertaken

by the Parties’.18 It follows that in order to realize the aim of the Charter its Appendix inevitably

has to be interpreted restrictively and undocumented migrants should be entitled to the

protection, particularly in the area of housing.

                                                                                                                         15 FIDH v France Comp no 14/2003 (ECSR, 8 September 2004) [26] 16 DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012) [30] 17 ibid (emphasis added) 18 DCI v the Netherlands Comp no 47/2008 (ECSR, 20 October 2009) [36]

 

 

8  

The Committee also stated that the Charter was envisaged as a complementary

instrument to the European Convention on Human Rights and that the rights guaranteed in the

Charter are not ends in themselves but they should complete the rights envisaged in ECHR.19

Thus, it is important to examine how the question of irregular migrants and their housing rights

is addressed in the Convention.

5.1.1. European Convention on Human Rights

Unlike the Charter, ECHR does not restrict personal scope of its provisions. According

to Article 1 of ECHR parties ‘shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and

freedoms’ defined in the Convention. Thus, persons do not have to be lawfully present on the

territory of a state to be entitled to the protection of ECHR. Individuals enjoy rights under the

Convention as long as they are physically present within the jurisdiction of a state, irrespective of

their status. Matti Mikkola, former chairman of the Committee, argues that the Charter, as an

instrument supplementing ECHR, may not limit the scope of persons envisaged in the

Convention.20 He supports the statement that due to interdependent system of these legal

documents, it is difficult to restrict by the Appendix in the Charter the universal applicability of

the Charter’s provisions, which are connected to the protection of human dignity under Articles

2, 3, 4(2), 5 and 8 of the Convention.21

The Committee emphasises the importance of the ECtHR case law for its practice,

noting that it is ‘particularly concerned that its interpretation of Article 31 is fully in line with the

European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of the relevant provisions of the

Convention’.22 Although rights envisaged in the Convention are essentially civil and political in

nature, many of them have social and economic implications.23 In its jurisprudence the ECtHR is

developing minimum states’ obligations in the area of housing.

Among the set of rights provided in ECHR, two articles are central for the protection of

irregular migrants and their right to housing: Article 3, which prohibits

                                                                                                                         19 FIDH v France Comp no 14/2003 (ECSR, 8 September 2004) [27] 20 M Mikkola, ‘Social Human Rights of Migrants under the European Social Charter’ <http://www.helsinki.fi/oikeustiede/omasivu/mikkola_matti/pdf/migrants.pdf> assessed 15 May 2015 21 ibid 22 FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007) [63] 23 Airey v Ireland App no 6289/73 (ECtHR, 9 September 1979) [26]

 

 

9  

torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and Article 8, protecting the right to family

and private life.

In CEC v. the Netherlands and FEANTSA v. the Netherlands the Committee cited Article 3

of the Convention as a relevant international material. A particular attention has been paid to

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgement of the ECtHR. In that case the ECtHR took into account

the lack of accommodation and the failure to ensure applicant’s essential needs. Such ‘living

conditions’ played a decisive role in the conclusion that the complainant ‘has been the victim of

humiliating treatment’ in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.24 The Committee also referred

to N. v. the United Kingdom case in which the ECtHR pointed out that expulsion of an irregular

migrant can constitute an inhuman treatment in exceptional circumstances, where, inter alia, no

basic level of food, shelter or social support would be available to the complainant in the

receiving State.25 Thus, the ECtHR impliedly admitted that such basic assistance should be

attainable in an expelling state. However, Article 3 of the Convention does not provide irregular

migrants with an opportunity to remain in the state in order to continue to benefit from social or

other forms of support.26

In regard to Article 8, in Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria the ECtHR ruled that ‘an

obligation to secure shelter to particularly vulnerable individuals may flow from Article 8 of the

Convention in exceptional cases’.27 In Chapman v. the United Kingdom it was acknowledged that

‘Article 8 does not in terms recognise a right to be provided with a home’.28Article 8 only creates

a right to respect for a person’s home and limits the extent to which public authorities can

interfere with that right.29

Therefore, the prohibition of inhuman treatment under Article 3, ECHR and the right to

respect for private life under Article 8, ECHR have been interpreted by the ECtHR to imply

positive minimum guarantees in the field of housing, in particular an obligation to provide

shelter to vulnerable individuals, however, in exceptional circumstances. Since rights envisaged in

the Charter complete those guaranteed by the Convention, the Charter,

                                                                                                                         24 M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece App no 30696/09 (ECtHR, 21 January 2011) [263] 25 CEC v the Netherlands Comp no 90/2013 (ECSR, 1 July 2014) [28] 26 N. v the United Kingdom App no 26565/05 (ECtHR, 27 May 2008) [42] 27 Yordanova and others v Bulgaria App no 25446/06 (ECtHR, 24 April 2012) [130] 28 Chapman v the United Kingdom App no 27238/95 (ECtHR, 21 January 2001) [99] 29 Cormac Ó Dúlacháin, ‘Housing Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and National Mechanisms’ (IHRC and Law Society Annual Conference: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Making States Accountable, Dublin, November 2009) <http://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/paper20091121_annconf_dulachain.pdf> assessed 16 May 2015

 

 

10  

as an instrument designed specifically to protect social rights, should definitely grant irregular

migrants at least the right to shelter.

5.2. Human dignity as a fundamental value

The Committee considers that ‘Human dignity is the fundamental value and indeed the

core of positive European human rights law – whether under the European Social Charter or

under the European Convention of Human Rights’.30

It was also explained that states may treat differently persons present lawfully and those

residing illegally in their territories.31 However, in any case it is crucial that human dignity is

respected. Differential treatment is prohibited only if it would place irregular migrants in an

“unacceptable situation” in comparison with migrants in a regular situation.32 Thus, the

Committee has defined a clear minimum benchmark of protection that should be afforded to

everyone, including irregular migrants, preservation of human dignity being determinative:

When human dignity is at stake, the restriction of the personal scope should not be read

in such a way as to deprive migrants in an irregular situation of the protection of their

most basic rights enshrined in the Charter, nor to impair their fundamental rights, such as

the right to life or to physical integrity or human dignity.33

In its relevant case-law the Committee consistently stated that ‘the right to shelter is

closely connected to the right to life and is crucial for the respect of every person’s human

dignity’.34 Moreover, evictions from shelter of irregular migrants are banned because it would

place them in the situation of extreme helplessness, which is detrimental for their human

dignity.35

Therefore, unlawfully residing migrants should enjoy the right to shelter and be protected

from eviction, since it is indispensable for the preservation of their human dignity.

5.3. Interpretation in the light of current conditions                                                                                                                          30 FIDH v France, Comp no 14/2003 (ECSR, 8 September 2004) [31] 31 DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012) [35] 32 ibid 33 CEC v the Netherlands Comp no 90/2013 (ECSR, 1 July 2014) [28] 34 ibid [137] 35 FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007) [60]

 

 

11  

In DCI v Netherlands the Committee reiterated that ‘rights in the Charter must take a

practical and effective, rather than a theoretical form’ and, therefore, shall be interpreted in the

light of current conditions. In its letter of 13 July 2011 addressed to all States Parties the

Committee draws the attention to the important social changes which have happened since the

adoption of the Charter, in particular, the increase in migration flows over the last twenty years.

Consequently, it was stressed that situation where only nationals of the States Parties can obtain

respect for their social rights is a ‘substantial discrimination’ and makes the Charter ‘at odds with

the universal nature of human rights’.36

5.4. Interpretation in the light of international instruments

In its case-law the Committee establishes a clear link between the scope of the right to

housing under the Charter and other instruments of international human rights law.

The Committee interprets the Charter in the light of the principles enshrined in the

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in particular Article 31(3)(�), which states that in the

interpretation of the treaty account shall be taken to ‘any relevant rules of international law

applicable in the relations between the parties’.37

International human rights provisions are generally applicable to every person as a

consequence of being human, regardless of migration status.38Thus, in principle, human rights

norms contained in conventions do not apply to irregular migrants only if they are expressly

excluded from the personal scope of an article.39

The Committee refers to the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights as ‘a key source of interpretation’ and attaches great importance to General Comments 4

and 7 of the UN Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.40Article 11 of the

Covenant recognizes the right to housing as a part of the right to an adequate standard of living.

General Comment 4 interprets that ‘the right to adequate housing

                                                                                                                         36 European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions 2011 – Volume 1 (Council of Europe Publishing, 2011) 17 37 DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012) [35] 38 Massimo Merlino and Joanna Parkin, ‘Fundamental and Human Rights Framework: Protecting Irregular Migrants in the EU’ (Centre for European Policy Study 2012) <http://migration.etuc.org/en/docs_en/3%20Fundamental%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Framework_%20Protecting%20Irregular%20Migrants%20in%20the%20EU.pdf> assessed 18 May 2015 39 ibid 40 FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007) [64] [65]

 

 

12  

applies to everyone’ and does not depend on the status of the individual.41 The UN Committee

considers ‘the inherent dignity of the human person’ to require that housing is provided to all

persons and that the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity should be ensured for

everyone.42 The UN Committee also maintains that the right to housing should not be

interpreted narrowly in terms of shelter and establishes factors which have to be taken into

account in assessing whether particular form of shelter constitutes ‘adequate housing’.43

Therefore, the Covenant envisages the higher degree of protection for irregular migrants

than the Charter, since under its provisions right to adequate housing should be applied to

everyone. At the same time, Article 31(1) of the Charter, which deals with adequate housing,

does not apply to migrants in an irregular situation.

However, it is important to note that the language of the UN Committee is much

stronger towards the right to shelter than the right to adequate housing. In General Comment 14

the right to basic shelter is viewed as a non-derogable core obligation of the states under the

Covenant.44 This means that it must be ensured even in exceptional circumstances.

The majority of thematic international human right treaties also apply universal approach

in relation to housing.

In particular, Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Racial Discrimination provides that states undertake to guarantee the right of everyone to

equality before the law in the enjoyment of, inter alia, the right to housing. General

Recommendation 30 on ‘Discrimination against non-citizens’ notes that ‘guarantees against racial

discrimination apply to non-citizens regardless of their immigration status’.45

                                                                                                                         41 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 4: The Right to Adequate Housing’ in ‘Note by the Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies’ (13 December 1991) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 [6] 42 FEANTSA v the Netherlands Comp no 86/2012 (ECSR, 2 July 2014) [31] 43 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 4: The Right to Adequate Housing’ in ‘Note by the Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies’ (13 December 1991) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 [8] 44 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’ in ‘Note by the Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies (11 August 2000) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 [43] 45 UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘General Recommendation 30’ (01 October 2004) UN Doc CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 [7]

 

 

13  

Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides, ‘State Parties recognize

the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s (…) development’. This

was interpreted to imply an obligation to provide assistance with regard to housing.46

Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides that

parties ‘recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for

themselves and their families, including adequate (…) housing’. According to Article 2 the

purpose of this instrument is to ‘ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and

fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities’.

Nonetheless, Article 43(1)(d) of the International Convention on the Protection of the

Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families grants right to enjoy equality of

treatment with nationals of the State of employment in relation to access to housing only to

documented migrants.

The Committee has also noted that it ‘paid close attention to and greatly benefited from

the work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing’.47 The Report of the

Special Rapporteur indicates that ‘Regardless of their immigration status, all migrants must be

afforded essential levels of protection with regard to their access to adequate housing and living

conditions’. It also mentions ensuring access to basic shelter and housing to all migrants in their

territory as a part of States’ core obligations, which have to be guaranteed with immediate

effect.48

Therefore, most the UN instruments declare the right to adequate housing for ‘everyone’.

At the same time, the requirement to provide shelter for all migrants is viewed as an obligation

of higher status, which states cannot derogate from.

Conclusion

Unlawfully residing migrants have the right to housing under the Charter that is,

however, narrower in scope than the right enjoyed by legally residing persons. Despite the fact

the Appendix to the Charter limits personal scope of its provisions to persons lawfully residing

in the territory of states, the Committee applied expansive interpretation. It was

                                                                                                                         46 UN Committee on the Rights of a Child, ‘General Comment 6: Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin’ (1 September 2005) UN Doc CRC/GC/2005/6 [44] 47 FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007) [65] 48 UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing’ (2010) UN Doc A/65/261 [81]

 

 

14  

stated that when specific right is crucial for the preservation of human dignity, irregular migrants

should not be denied it. The right to adequate housing under Article 31(1) was not considered to

be of such importance, but the right to shelter was, since shelter is viewed as a minimum housing

corresponding with human dignity. In CEC v. the Netherlands and FEANTSA v. the Netherlands

the Committee explicitly recognized that irregular migrants enjoy right to shelter under the

Charter, which is a part of, inter alia, Article 31(2) of the Charter. Such approach is in line with

the ECtRH’s interpretation of ECRH, which the Charter aims to complement, as well as

international principles where the provision of shelter to every person in need is defined as a

non-derogable obligation of states.

Bibliography

Case Law of the European Committee of Social Rights

CEC v the Netherlands Comp no 90/2013 (ECSR, 1 July 2014)

DCI v Belgium Comp no 69/2011 (ECSR, 23 October 2012)

DCI v the Netherlands Comp no 47/2008 (ECSR, 20 October 2009)

FEANTSA v France Comp no 39/2006 (ECSR, 5 December 2007)

FEANTSA v the Netherlands Comp no 86/2012 (ECSR, 2 July 2014)

FIDH v France Comp no 14/2003 (ECSR, 8 September 2004)

Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

Airey v Ireland App no 6289/73 (ECtHR, 9 September 1979)

Chapman v the United Kingdom App no 27238/95 (ECtHR, 21 January 2001)

M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece App no 30696/09 (ECtHR, 21 January 2011)

N. v the United Kingdom App no 26565/05 (ECtHR, 27 May 2008)

Yordanova and others v Bulgaria App no 25446/06 (ECtHR, 24 April 2012)

 

 

15  

Treaties

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European

Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006, entered into

force 30 March 2007) UN Doc A/RES/61/106, Annex I

Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2

September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 (CRC)

European Social Charter (Revised) (3 May 1996) ETS 163

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21

December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195 (ICERD)

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members

of Their Families (adopted 18 December 1990, entered into force 1 July 2003) UN Doc

A/RES/45/158

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966,

entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 164 (ICESCR)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)

(UDHR)

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January

1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT)

Interpretative documents

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 14: The Right to

the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’ in ‘Note by the Secretariat, Compilation of General

Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies (11

August 2000) UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ‘General Comment 4: The Right to

Adequate Housing’ in ‘Note by the Secretariat, Compilation of General Comments and General

 

 

16  

Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies’ (13 December 1991) UN Doc

HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ‘General Recommendation 30’ (01

October 2004) UN Doc CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3

UN Committee on the Rights of a Child, ‘General Comment 6: Treatment of unaccompanied

and separated children outside their country of origin’ (1 September 2005) UN Doc

CRC/GC/2005/6

UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing’ (2010) UN Doc A/65/261

Other material

Dúlacháin C, ‘Housing Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and National

Mechanisms’ (IHRC and Law Society Annual Conference: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:

Making States Accountable, Dublin, November 2009)

<http://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/paper20091121_annconf_dulachain.pdf> assessed 16

May 2015

European Committee of Social Rights, ‘Digest of the Case Law of the European Committee of

Social Rights’ (ECSR 2008)

European Committee of Social Rights, Conclusions 2011 – Volume 1 (Council of Europe

Publishing, 2011)

Merlino M, Parkin J, ‘Fundamental and Human Rights Framework: Protecting Irregular Migrants

in the EU’ (Centre for European Policy Study 2012)

<http://migration.etuc.org/en/docs_en/3%20Fundamental%20and%20Human%20Rights%20

Framework_%20Protecting%20Irregular%20Migrants%20in%20the%20EU.pdf> assessed 18

May 2015

Mikkola M, ‘Social Human Rights of Migrants under the European Social Charter’

<http://www.helsinki.fi/oikeustiede/omasivu/mikkola_matti/pdf/migrants.pdf> assessed 15

May 2015

 

 

17  

                                                                                                                         i The responsibility for the information and views set out in the reports lies entirely with the author. ii   The Panel of Experts that assessed the submissions to the competition were the following: Annalisa Ciampi (University of Verona), Francesco Costamagna (University oá Turin), Donata Gottardi (University of Verona) Giovanni Guiglia (University of Verona), Lorenza Mola (University of Turin), Claudio Panzera (Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria), Neliana Rodean (University of Verona), Evelyne Schmid (University of Bern), Gregor T. Chatton (Swiss Federal Supreme Court), Jaume Saura Estapa (University of Barcelona), Mercedes Fernández (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), Joaquín Eguren (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), Cristina Cortázar (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), José Luis Rey (Universidad Pontificia Comillas), Anders Narvestad (University of Oslo), Azin Tadjdini (University of Oslo), Johan Leiss (University of Oslo), Marit Frogner (Labour Court of Norway), Benedita Mac Crorie (University of Minho) and Tiago Fidalgo De Freitas (University of Lisbon).