Caselaw Database - All Cases

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

Upon going into labor, Ms. A.S., a member of the Roma community, needed an emergency Caesarian section. Immediately before the surgery, a doctor asked Ms. A.S. to sign consent forms on which the doctor had hand-written a statement that Ms. A.S. consented to a sterilization procedure. Ms. A.S. did not understand the statement or that she had been sterilized until after the operation took place. Her claim of civil rights violations and negligent sterilization was rejected at the local level. In her communication to the CEDAW Committee, it found that the Ms. A.S.

Under the SSPA system in Hong Kong, children are evaluated and placed into corresponding secondary schools based upon an Internal Assessment (IA) and an Academic Aptitude Test (AAT). placed into secondary schools based on those scores.  However, the IA and AAT scores were evaluated and analyzed based on sex, particularly because girls typically scored higher on the Internal Assessment portion and boys faired better on the Academic Aptitude standardized test.

Eight women, all members of the Roma community in Slovakia, received gynaecological and obstetric treatment in eastern Slovakia. After this treatment, all eight women were unsuccessful in conceiving again. The women recalled being asked to sign documents prior to discharge from the hospital, but they were unable to identify the contents of the documents they signed.

The Naz Foundation India, a non-governmental organization committed to HIV/AIDS intervention and prevention, filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the India Penal Code, which makes it illegal to engage in any "unnatural" sexual act, defined as sex other than heterosexual intercourse. The Delhi High Court dismissed the original writ of petition in 2004 for lack of a cause of action.

The Colombian Constitutional Court has among its functions the review of tutela actions. The Court annually reviews a small proportion of the more than 300,000 tutela actions resolved by lower judges; 36% of which are related to the right to health according to data of the Colombian Ombudsman's Office for 2005. Decision T-760 of 2008 accumulated 22 of these cases. However, the Court did not limit itself to reviewing and resolving these individual cases.

FEANTSA alleged that France was in violation of Article 31 of the Revised European Social Charter (RESC) due to its failure to ensure an effective right to housing for its residents in a range of different contexts.

The state of Punjab enacted a law to prevent rickshaw pullers from being exploited by middlemen. It created a program whereby rickshaw pullers would be given an interest-free loan to buy their own rickshaws, and the state issued licenses to the owners to make sure the law was enforced.  Only the owners could pull the newly purchased rickshaws, and licenses would not be issued or would be revoked if the state learned that someone else was pulling the rickshaw.

This petition was brought to challenge the constitutionality of imposing a "capitation fee" (a fee based on the number of persons to whom a service is provided, rather than the actual cost of providing a service) on those people who wanted to enter a private medical school and were not admitted to the "government seats". These seats are reserved by the Government of India for members of communities that are explicitly recognized by the Indian Constitution as requiring support to overcome historic discrimination, or other groups designated by the government.

The City of Johannesburg sought to evict men, women and children from two buildings in Berea, in the inner city. This was part of an overall clearance policy under the Johannesburg Inner City Regeneration Strategy, in which evictions have been carried out in the middle of the night and without notice, under Apartheid-era laws and regulations. The city alleged that the living conditions are unhygienic and constitute a fire hazard, but had refused to offer the occupiers alternative accommodation.

Sally Chapman purchased a piece of land in 1985 with the intention of living on it in a caravan. She was refused permission to live on the land by the District Council and was given 15 months to vacate it. She claimed her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, including Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (violation of prohibition of discrimination). Following an invitation of the President of the Court (according to Art 36 § 2), the European Roma Rights Centre intervened as a third party in the written procedure.