Enforcement/Implementation of ESCR

Primary tabs


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.

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.

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.

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.

Un ciudadano afgano (el Sr. M.S.S.) presentó una solicitud de asilo en Bélgica tras ingresar a la UE a través de Grecia. Conforme al Reglamento de Dublín (legislación de la UE que determina qué país es responsable de procesar solicitudes de asilo específicas), Bélgica lo trasladó nuevamente a Grecia para que Grecia procesara la solicitud de asilo. Grecia detuvo al solicitante bajo condiciones degradantes y luego lo liberó dentro del país para que espere hasta que se resuelva su solicitud. Durante este periodo, el Sr. M.S.S.

An Afghan citizen (Mr. M.S.S.) presented an asylum application in Belgium after entering the EU through Greece. Pursuant to the Dublin Regulations (EU law that determines which country has responsibility for processing specific asylum petitions), Belgium transferred him back to Greece in order for Greece to process the asylum petition. Greece detained the applicant in degrading conditions and then released him into the country to await a decision on his application. During this time, Mr. M.S.S. was homeless, not permitted to work, and had no access to sanitary facilities or any resources.

In 2006, Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), an organization member of the ESCR-Net, filed an amparo action against the Government of the City of Buenos Aires. The purpose of the action was to have the Court order the Government to comply with its existing constitutional obligation to ensure and finance access to early education. The case centered on violations of the right to education and to equality, as well as the principle of personal autonomy.

En 2006, la Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), organización miembro de la Red DESC, promovió una acción de amparo contra el Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. El objeto de la acción fue lograr que se ordenara al Gobierno cumplir con su obligación constitucional de asegurar y financiar el acceso a la educación inicial, al estar afectados el derecho a la educación y a la igualdad, y el principio de autonomía personal.

Liliane Gröninger presentó esta Comunicación ante el Comité sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad en nombre propio, el de su marido y su hijo, Erhard Gröninger, quien tiene discapacidades.

Liliane Gröninger presented the communication before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on behalf of herself, her husband and her son, Erhard Gröninger, a person with disabilities.   Mrs. Gröninger argues Germany violated Article 3 (General principles), Article 4 (General obligations), Article 8 (Awareness –raising) and Article 27 (Work and employment) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (The Convention), through legislation that failed to promote Mr. Gröninger participation in the labor marker.