Caselaw Database - All Cases

ESCR-Net Caselaw Database: A database on domestic, regional and international decisions regarding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The petitioners are an Israeli Arab couple who wanted to build their house in the settlement of Katsir in Israel. Their request was rejected as they were Arabs and as the lands on which the settlement of Katzir was built were designed exclusively for Jews. Indeed, these lands were allocated by the State of Israel to the Jewish Agency for Israel which in turn transferred it to an agency that only sold plots to Jews. The petitioner claimed that the policy according to which settlements are established exclusively for Jews violates the principle of equality.

The State of Queensland and the Commonwealth alleged that successive legislative regimes since 1877 (for Queensland) and the 1950s (for the Commonwealth) had extinguished Torres Strait communities’ rights to fish for commercial purposes, by regulating “control, management and exploitation of the living resources” within  “native title areas”.

On the appeal, the High Court held that such statutes were consistent with the continuing recognition of native title rights to fish for commercial purposes.

Appeal of South Gauteng High Court’s dismissal of application for interim relief brought by South African Informal Traders Forum and South African National Traders Retail Association. Appellants cited their right to access to courts under Section 34 of the South African constitution as a basis of their appeal.

The petitioners, members of a nomadic tribal community called Gadia Lohar, migrated from Rajasthan to New Delhi in 1965 and settled in slum clusters (“jhuggies”) in a New Delhi locality known as Gadia Lohar Basti (or Prem Nagar).  They had lived in the locality for over 40 years when their huts were demolished and they contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the Slum Department violated their right to shelter, when they did not provide for their relocation to settlements with basic facilities.  Respondents alleged tha

The claimants on the case were representatives of local communities, herders living in Tuya bag, and the NGO “Owners of Huvsgul Lake”. The claim was submitted by CHRD’s lawyers, alleging that the mining licenses issued by the Geological and Cadastral Department were illegal, according to the article of 9.1. 7 of the Mongolian Administrative Act, and should be invalidated.

In March 2008, Bayer HealthCare LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, was granted a subject patent by India’s Patent Office, pursuant to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (DCA) and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (DCR),  for “sorafenib tosylate” (ST), commonly prescribed for treatment of advanced renal cancer.  Bayer HealthCare LLC subsequently assigned its titles to the patented drug in India to Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”).

Miss Chakraborty, in a criminal complaint, alleged that she began an affair in April 1989 with Chakraborty while he was a lecturer and she was a student at Baptist College in Kohima, Nagaland.  She asserted Gautam professed his love and deceived her into sexual intercourse with false assurances that he would marry her after receiving his parents’ consent.

In 2010, the State of Mexico promoted the construction and operation of a project called “Independencia Aqueduct”, which includes plans to carry around 60 million cubic meters of water from the “El Novillo” dam (located in the Yaqui river) to the Sonora river basin to supply water to the city of Hermosillo, Sonora.  The project includes building a water catchment system at “El Novillo”, a repumping station, a steel aqueduct to supply the national water network, and a power transmission line.  The purpose of the works is to carry the water from the Yaqui river to the city of Hermosillo, in v

The Committee analyzed three issues regarding the right of Roma to housing in Portugal: the “precarious and difficult housing conditions for a large part of the Roma community”; “the high number of Roma families that live in segregated settings”; and “the inadequacy of re-housing programmes for the Roma community in terms of their family composition, cultural habits and ways of life”.

This case concerns the attempted eviction of tenants of certain residential flats in Johannesburg.  These tenants had been living in these flats subject to various leases, some for nearly twenty years.  The leases contained a provision allowing either party to terminate the lease with certain notice.  Three years before the attempted evictions the landlord told the tenants to pay double or triple their rent or leave their homes. When the tenants refused, the landlord terminated their leases.