United Kingdom

Primary tabs

The claimants in this joined action were asylum-seekers who had sought asylum after their initial entry to the UK. The defendant, Secretary of State for the Home Department, refused support under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002 ("the Act") with regard to accommodation. Section 55 allowed refusal of support to asylum seekers who failed to make their claim as soon as reasonably practicable.

The applicant, Ms. N, a Ugandan national, entered the UK in March 1998. She was seriously ill and was diagnosed as HIV positive. She completed an asylum application within a few days, claiming she had been raped by the National Resistance Movement in Uganda because of her association with the Lord's Resistance Army. In August 1998, Ms. N developed Kaposi's sarcoma. In March 2001, a physician prepared an expert report which expressed that without regular antiretroviral treatment and monitoring, the applicant's life expectancy would be less than one year.

Country: 
United Kingdom
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
OP-ICESCR
Country: 
United Kingdom
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Strategic Litigation
Monitoring
OP-ICESCR
Country: 
United Kingdom
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Strategic Litigation
OP-ICESCR

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.

Country: 
United Kingdom
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Women & ESCR
Corporate Accountability
Strategic Litigation
Economic Policy
Monitoring
OP-ICESCR

Regulations entitled those on social security benefits to receipt of a winter fuel payment for.  The payment was available to women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over. Mr Taylor was 62 and brought a complaint on the basis that the regulation did not comply with the European Union Council Directive on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. The High Court referred the interpretation of the Directive to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).  

According to Section 298 each local education authority (‘LEA') was required to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of, amongst other things, illness, might not otherwise receive it. According to Section 298, “‘suitable education,' in relation to a child...

Country: 
United Kingdom
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Corporate Accountability
OP-ICESCR