Housing (Right to adequate)

Primary tabs

Caselaw

This case was initiated in 2008 when the Inclusive Communities Project (ICP), a non-profit group, sued the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) in relation to a federal tax credit program used by states and local governments to build affordable housing. ICP claimed that the TDHCA perpetuated segregation in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by granting too many tax credits to new housing developments in predominantly black inner city areas and too few in primarily white suburban neighborhoods.

This case concerns a municipality’s efforts to remove residents from land it had deemed to be a “local state of disaster” pursuant to the Disaster Management Act (“DMA”), which was intended to provide municipalities with flexibility in urgently responding to disaster-stricken areas when such action is necessary for the preservation of life.  Upon learning of their impending removal, the residents challenged the eviction, arguing that the removal was unlawful under the Constitution’s guarantees of the right to housing and certain statutory provisions.  The reside

Tras un informe periodístico sobre una mujer indigente que falleció en una calle muy concurrida cuatro días después de dar a luz a una beba, el Tribunal abrió esta causa de interés público por iniciativa propia. El Tribunal solicitó a la organización Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), un miembro de la Red-DESC, que presentara amicus sobre la situación en Delhi de la salud de las mujeres indigentes embarazadas y que se encuentran en el período de lactancia, y que sugiera medidas adecuadas.

Following a newspaper report regarding a destitute woman who died on a busy street four days after giving birth to a baby girl, the Court brought this public interest litigation (PIL) on its own motion. The Court also asked the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), an ESCR-Net member organization, to file an amicus brief on the status of maternal health for destitute pregnant and lactating women in Delhi, and to suggest appropriate remedies. HRLN’s amicus outlined myriad state failures to implement government schemes providing for food and health services to women and marginalized groups.

The Xákmok Kásek indigenous community, who has originally lived in the Paraguayan Chaco area, filed a petition before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights requesting acknowledgement of their traditional territory. Paraguay sold and split up the land without taking into consideration the indigenous population. The Salazar ranch was founded in the land that had been the home of the Xákmok Kásek community for years.  The community’s ability to survive and to develop its way of life was restricted, and the State failed to fulfill its duty to guarantee the community’s territorial rights.

La Comunidad Indígena Xákmok Kásek, originariamente del área del Chaco Paraguayo, reclamó ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos el reconocimiento de  su territorio tradicional.  Paraguay vendió y dividió estas tierras sin consideración de las poblaciones indígenas.  La Estancia Salazar se fundó en la tierra donde por años vivió la a Comunidad Xákmok Kásek y en esta Estancia, se limitó la capacidad de la comunidad a subsistir y desarrollar su modo de vida, además de la omisión del Estado en su deber de garantizar los derechos territoriales de la comunidad.

The petitioners are an Israeli Arab couple who wanted to build their house in the settlement of Katsir in Israel. Their request was rejected as they were Arabs and as the lands on which the settlement of Katzir was built were designed exclusively for Jews. Indeed, these lands were allocated by the State of Israel to the Jewish Agency for Israel which in turn transferred it to an agency that only sold plots to Jews. The petitioner claimed that the policy according to which settlements are established exclusively for Jews violates the principle of equality.

Los peticionarios son una pareja árabe/israelí que deseaba construir su casa en el asentamiento de Katzir, en Israel. Su solicitud fue rechazada porque eran árabes y las tierras en las que se construyó el asentamiento de Katzir habían sido designadas exclusivamente para judíos. Concretamente, las tierras eran asignadas por el Estado de Israel a la autoridad denominada "Jewish Agency for Israel", la cual las transfería a un organismo que vendía terrenos solamente a judíos.

Apelación del rechazo por parte del Alto Tribunal de South Gauteng de una solicitud de medida cautelar presentada por las organizaciones South African Informal Traders Forum y South African National Traders Retail Association. Los peticionantes invocaron su derecho a acceder a la justicia reconocido en el artículo 34 de la constitución de Sudáfrica para fundamentar la apelación.