This study sets out to argue, by providing examples from three countries, that the European Social Charter should truly be regarded as the Social Constitution of Europe, being the most significant and “effective” International Convention for the defence of social human rights, a characterisation largely due to its direct effect in the legal sphere. It is the guardian of the social State model.
Evidence of the above can be found in Spain, Greece, and France, where lower courts have ruled (and higher courts in France) to reassert the rights enshrined in the Charter. To this end, the discussion focusses on the relevance of efforts to correctly structure the system of sources of law, the materialisation of the conventionality control as opposed to constitutionality control, and the application of the favor libertatis principle. It may appear simple, as the legal arguments are available, but making these arguments to effectively materialise support the European Social Charter can sometimes be a true battle.
The text of the Charter clearly evinces that this is the legal instrument embodying the highest standard of social rights protection, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and indeed the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which have important correlations, should be invoked in any assertions or claims made by organisations, associations and social agents, citizens, or law professionals.
Finally, the relevance and operativity of the European Social Charter in connection with the right to housing is pointed out. Although this right is recognised under Art. 31 of the revised version, the transversal and cohesive interpretation of the precepts and its aims conducted by the European Committee of Social Rights means that this right is also discerned in Art. 16 (which has been ratified by many more Contracting Parties). Therefore, one can demand not only that sufficient housing is provided, but also that it is not sub-standard, that it has the essential amenities, and that there is security from unlawful eviction (see, among other decisions, the decision on the merits of 12 May 2017, Complaint no. 110/2014, International Federation for Human Rights v. Ireland).
Read full analysis here.
