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).