Caselaw Database - All Cases

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

Diaguita communities and individuals living in the Huasco river's high basin, in the Atacama region of Chile, filed an action to protect constitutional rights against Compañía Minera Nevada SpA (a subsidiary of Canada-based Barrick Gold) and the Comisión de Evaluación Ambiental (Chile's government agency dealing with environmental issues).

Ninety-year-old Eduardo Navia brought this tutela action seeking to receive disability payments from the State. He had undergone heart surgery in May 1998 and January 2008, with both surgeries limiting his ability to work. Relying on a certification of disability issued by the Social Security Agency (ISS) Section of Bolivar on September 14, 2007, he applied for disability benefits to the ISS on October 5, 2007. The ISS determined his date of disability to be March 6, 2007, but denied his application claiming that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Art.

This 2014 decision was handed down after three rounds of litigation. In 2012 applicants sought a court order directing the delivery of school furniture to three rural schools in dire need of furniture; a declaration that the State had violated children’s right to education by failing to provide “adequate, age and grade appropriate furniture” at Eastern Cape schools; and an order that the state complete a comprehensive audit of school furniture needs in the province.

The Saramaka people, descendants of self-liberated African slaves, have been living on their traditional territory in Suriname since the early 1700s. This non-indigenous community lives in a traditional way by fishing, hunting and woodworking, and their relationship with the land is more than economic, but also spiritual and cultural. In 1986, Suriname adopted a new Constitution specifying that all non-titled lands and natural resources belonged to the State.

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”).