Caselaw Database - All Cases

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

The case was filed against the US government by Glamis Gold, a Canadian mining company engaged in the mining of precious metals. The project area was located within the California Desert Conservation Area, and designated areas of special cultural concern, and near, though not on, the Quechan Indian Tribe’s reservation lands.

The Mental Disability Advocacy Center brought a complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights (which judges compliance of State parties with the European Social Charter) alleging that children living in homes for mentally disabled children (HMDCs) in Bulgaria received little to no education.

The applicant Phakamile Ranelo brought a complaint before the Eastern Cape High Court against the South African Social Security Agency alleging that the State had unlawfully terminated his disability grant. South African regulations oblige the Social Security Agency to have informed Ranelo, in writing, of his approval for a disability grant, its temporary nature, and his right to appeal its temporary status. Ranelo argued he received no such prior notice, so his belief in his grant’s permanent nature was valid.

The applicants occupy dilapidated buildings on land owned by the Rustenburg Local Municipality. Since 2004 the municipality had been planning to develop this land. The municipality met with the residents several times to discuss the development plan and to obtain consent from the residents, but no consensus was reached. The residents refused to leave their homes and accept alternative accommodation.

A mentally disabled woman with three children sought to set aside an eviction order from the family home obtained by her former husband. In making the eviction order, the magistrate found that the man was the registered owner of the property and the former wife and the children occupied the home after he had withdrawn his consent. The magistrate acknowledged the woman’s disability, but found that the former wife had suitable alternative accommodation available because she could move back in with her relatives (which she denied).

The case was a consolidation of two class actions brought under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which allows prisoners to sue for violations of constitutional rights. California's prisons were designed to hold about 80,000 prisoners, but at the time of filing, the system held about 156,000. In both class actions, overcrowding was found to constitute an 8th Amendment violation because of a serious lack of access to basic medical care, with one case dealing specifically with prisoners with serious mental illness.

In 2005, under the Article 26 procedure of the Constitution, the Irish Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a bill referred to it by the President. This bill authorized charges for in-patient services, provided by the public health service, to be imposed on certain people, in most cases, elderly people of limited means.

The plaintiffs in this case were members of the Irish Travelling community, traditionally a nomadic people. This particular group of Travellers lived on an unofficial halting or caravan, site in Limerick City for over eight years, in conditions of extreme deprivation and squalor, without running water, toilet facilities, domestic refuse storage and collection, and hard surfaces for their caravans.

Due to the deterioration of the buildings within Schubart Park, a state-subsidized residential complex, the City stopped the water and electricity supply while 700 families were living there. Residents protested by lighting fires and throwing objects from buildings. The police removed these residents and would not allow them or any other residents from this complex to return. Negotiations occurred between the residents and the City to find temporary accommodations for the displaced residents, but no agreement was reached.

This case concerns a claim for damages by a woman with severe disabilities, Mrs. Bernard and her husband, Mr. Bernard, her sole caregiver, alleging that the local Housing Department did not provide them with accommodations suitably adapted for her disability. This failure, it was contended, constituted a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Damages were sought under the Human Rights Act (HRA), which is the implementing legislation for the ECHR in the UK.