Adequate Standard of Living (right to)

Primary tabs

On 10 September, 2013, the High Court granted an eviction order “by agreement” of 184 unauthorized occupiers from a block of flats where they had been living for periods of up to 26 years. Only four of the 184 occupiers were present at the initial Court proceeding, accompanied by their unofficial ward committee representative, Mr. Skhulu Ngubane. The High Court both ordered the eviction of the occupiers, and, in parallel proceedings, refused to grant a rescission of this judgment. The case before the Constitutional Court was the rescission application.

Seven parties, a human rights organization, a civil rights organization, a privacy rights organization, an organization that works for the privacy rights of clients of psychotherapists, a statute-made national council of client participants in government policymaking, and two individuals brought suit against the State of the Netherlands in March 2018, challenging the legality of the use of the System Risk Indication (SyRi), a government data legal instrument used to assess the risk that individuals receiving welfare benefits from the State have behaved fraudulently.

In Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Argentina violated its obligations under Article 1.1 of the American...

Indigenous community members from the Lhaka Honhat Association sued Argentina on behalf of 132 Indigenous communities belonging to the Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí), and Tapy'y (Tapiete) peoples who live on lots with the cadastral registrations 175 and 5557 in the Province of Salta (previously known as and referred to in the case as lots 14 and 55).

The claimant filed a tutela action against the Public Works of Cartagena alleging that they put into operation an uncompleted sewer system, producing overflowing black waters and unsanitary conditions in two neighborhoods. The complaint alleged a violation of Article 88 of the Colombian constitution protecting the right to public health and asked for injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm, as established under Article 5 of the Decree 2591.

This tutela case concerned the requirement that the state provide health services to a group of children living in an impoverished area of Bogotá. Four hundred and eighteen families brought this action against the Ministry of Health and the District Secretary of Health seeking free vaccines against two strains of bacterial meningitis. The plaintiffs argued their case under Article 44 of the Colombian Constitution, which guarantees certain freedoms and protections to children, and under various treaties to which Colombia subscribed.

The plaintiff in this case is a man whose unemployment benefits were reduced first by 30% and then by 60% when he declined a proposed employer and later failed to accept a training and trial placement in another role. The man objected to the reductions unsuccessfully, and filed suit in the Social Court. Before rendering a decision, the Social Court stayed the proceedings in order to obtain judicial review from the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) as to whether or not the sanctions scheme in question is in compliance with the Basic Law.

In 2005, Germany began the fourth stage of a program aimed at reducing the costs of the country’s social welfare system, an initiative named after its chief architect, Volkswagen personnel director, Peter Hartz. Hartz IV merged unemployment and welfare benefits, fixing the standard benefit for single people living in old West German states (including East Berlin) at 345 Euros per month. This amount was determined based on a statistical survey of income and expenditure of lower income groups. Benefits for other household members were determined as a percentage of 345 Euros.

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) brought this case against Italy for violating Article 31 and Article E of the Revised European Social Charter in failing to protect the Roma population’s right to housing, as well as systematically discriminating against the Roma community. In 2005, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) reported its decision in the case to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to enforce Italy’s compliance with the judgment.

Yolanda Daniels is a domestic worker and sole head-of-household who resided for 16 years in a farm dwelling.  She began living there when her former husband was employed by the owner.  She and her three children remained in the dwelling with the owner’s consent after the couple divorced.