Follow-up to decisions on the merits of collective complaints: Findings 2021

In accordance with the European Social Charter reporting procedure, certain countries were exempted from reporting for the Conclusions 2021. These countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal, were instead invited to provide information on the follow-up given to the decisions of their respective collective complaints. Among the different conclusions, Housing Rights Watch would like to highlight primarily the collective complaints and the findings of the Committee where the right to adequate housing is concerned through different provisions of the European Social Charter (Charter from here on). Below is a summary of collective complaints and findings related to housing rights, broken down by country and complaint.

Country by country overview:

Belgium

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v. Belgium, Complaint No. 62/2010[1], concerning housing rights of Travellers. In its decision, the Committee concluded that there had been several violations of Article E (non-discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 16 of the Charter on the grounds of failure to recognise caravans as dwellings, the insufficiency of stopping places, the evictions from sites and the failure to take account of the specific circumstances of Traveller families when drawing up and implementing planning legislation. The Committee also founds that there was a lack of a co-ordinated and overall policy in housing matters with regards to Travellers, linked to Article 30 of the Charter. In its assessment of the follow-up, the Committee finds that progress has been made regarding the recognition of caravans as dwellings in the Walloon Region and that there are active projects to develop reception areas for Travellers. However, no information has been provided concerning housing quality standards that are adapted to caravans in the Brussels Region and Walloon Region, and there is a lack of information on the number of sites available to Travellers across the Regions. The Committee also notes that Travellers do not sufficiently benefit from a co-ordinated overall policy to combat the poverty and social exclusion from which they suffer in Belgium. The Committee concludes, therefore, that the situation has not been brought into conformity with the Charter provisions invoked.

Bulgaria

European Roma Rights Centre v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 31/2005[2], concerning housing rights for Roma families. In its decision, the Committee found violations of Article E in conjunction with Article 16 on the grounds of inadequate housing of Roma families and the lack of proper amenities; lack of legal security of tenure and the non-respect of the conditions applicable to eviction of Roma families from dwellings unlawfully occupied by them. As to the inadequate housing of Roma families and the lack of proper amenities, the Committee takes note in its assessment of the measures taken and initiatives that are underway. However, the Committee also notes that no new information is provided by the Bulgarian authorities on the issues of legalising the housing of Roma and forced evictions, and considers that the situation in Bulgaria has not yet been brought into conformity with the Charter.

France

Médecins du Monde – International v. France, Complaint No. 67/2011[3], concerning rights of Roma migrants. The Committee found violations of the Article E read in conjunction with Article 31§1, on the grounds of excessively limited access for migrant Romas to adequate housing, and of substandard housing conditions; with Article 31§2, on the grounds of the evicting migrant Roma from the sites where they are settled and the inadequacy of measures to provide emergency accommodation and reduce homelessness among migrant Roma; and with Article 16, on the grounds of inadequate measures to provide housing to families of migrant Roma lawfully residing or legally working in France. In its previous assessment of the follow-up, the Committee found that the situations which had given rise to violations of Article E read in conjunction with Articles 16, 30, 31§1 and 31§2 had been brought into conformity. In the meantime, the Committee considers that the situation has not been brought into conformity with some of the other violations of rights concerned in the complaint.

Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF) v. France, Complaint No.114/ 2015[4], concerning the rights of unaccompanied foreign minors. In relation to housing rights, the Committee found a violation of Article 17§1 due to the shortcomings noted in the national shelter, assessment, and guidance system for unaccompanied foreign minors; and a violation of Article 7§10 because of inappropriate accommodation of minors or their exposure to life on the street. In its assessment of the follow up, the Committee request data on the refusal rates for applications by persons claiming to be minors seeking access to child protection services and information on the inappropriate accommodation of minors or their exposure to life on the street. The Committee considers that the situation has not been brought into conformity.

European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) v. France, Complaint No. 119/2015[5], concerning the rights of Roma children. In the Committees decision, it found violations of Article E combined with Article 31 of the Charter. The Committee concluded that the situation which had led to the findings of violations of Article E read in conjunction with Article 31 had already been brought into conformity.

Greece

European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, Complaint No. 15/2003[6], concerning access to housing for Roma families. The committee concluded that there was a violation of Article 16 on the grounds of the insufficiency of permanent dwellings; the lack of temporary stopping places and the forced eviction of Roma families.

International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS) v. Greece Complaint No. 49/2008[7], concerning access to housing for Roma families. The Committee concluded that there was a violation of Article 16 on the grounds of insufficient regards to the particular situation of families, with the result that a significant number of Roma families continue to live in conditions that fail to meet minimum standards; and that Roma families continue to be forcibly evicted in breach of the Charter and the legal remedies generally available are not sufficiently accessible to them.

In its combined assessment of the follow-up, The Committee considers that certain progress has been made. However, the Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the measures taken by public authorities to improve the substandard housing conditions of Roma. The Committee finds that the situation has not been brought into conformity with the Charter as it has not been demonstrated that there is adequate legal protection for Roma families threatened by eviction, and as evictions are carried out in conditions respecting the dignity of the persons concerned.

Ireland

European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) v. Ireland, Complaint No. 100/2013[8], concerning the right to housing of Travellers. In its decision, the Committee concluded that there was a violation of Article 16 on the grounds of insufficient provision of accommodation for Travellers; that many Traveller sites are in an inadequate condition; the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 provides for inadequate safeguards for Travellers threatened with eviction and inadequate safeguards for Travellers threatened with eviction. The Committee notes that Ireland has made progress in the provision of accommodation for Travellers, access to housing and refurbishment of Traveller accommodation. However, despite this progress there is still a substantial shortfall in the provision of accommodation for Travellers. The Committee refers to inadequate safeguards governing Traveller evictions and asks for information int on the adoption and implementation of all the measures envisaged in order to remedy the situation. Meanwhile, the Committee finds that the situation has not yet been brought into conformity with Article 16 of the Charter.

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v. Ireland (No. 110/2014[9], concerning adequacy of local authority housing. The Committee concluded in its decision that there was a violation of Article 16 on the grounds of a significant number of local authority tenants reside in poor housing conditions. The Committee finds that Ireland has made progress in the adoption of measures to ensure an adequate standard of living in local authority housing. However, despite this progress the Committee notes that there are still substantial limitations in providing adequate accommodation to a large number of families, who continue living in substandard local authority housing conditions. The Committee further notes unsatisfactory management and maintenance issues in housing conditions for tenants, that the legal framework for the right to housing for families in Ireland is still insufficient and that and there are no national statistics on the conditions of local authority housing stock. Meanwhile, the Committee finds that the situation has not been brought into conformity with Article 16.

Portugal

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) c. Portugal, Complaint No. 61/2010[10], concerning right to housing of Roma. The Committee concluded that there was a violation of Article E in conjunction with Articles 31§1, 16 and 30, on the grounds of the continuing precarious housing conditions for the Roma community, coupled with the fact that the Government had not demonstrated that it had taken sufficient measures to ensure that Roma live in adequate housing conditions and the implementation of re-housing programmes by municipalities often led to segregation and discrimination of Roma. In its assessment of the follow-up, the committee finds that although the authorities further developed and adjusted their policies, funding and data collection and adopted some measures to mitigate the Covid-19 pandemic, many persons belonging to the Roma communities continue to be subject to direct and indirect discrimination and segregation, resulting from policy and practice. The committee finds that relevant data is limited, and there are “invisible” Roma families who are not in contact with public institutions not necessarily covered. The Committee considers that, despite the progress made, the situation has not yet been brought into conformity with Article E in conjunction with Articles 31§1, 16 and 30 of the Charter.

Italy

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Italy, Complaint No. 27/2004[11], concerning access to housing for Roma and Sinti communities (RSC). In its decision, the Committee found the violations of Article E read in the conjunction with Article 16 on the grounds that RSC did not have access to adequate housing and were not protected against undue interference in family life; with Article 31§1 on account of the inadequate living conditions in camps, inadequate steps to ensure that Roma are offered housing of a sufficient quantity and quality to meet their particular needs; with Article 31§ due to evictions procedures; with Articles 31§1 and 31§3 because of the lack of permanent dwellings of an acceptable quality and due to failing to provide information to show that the right of access to social housing is effective in practice and non discriminatory. In its assessment of the follow up, The Committee notes with that progress is being made at local level in finding housing solutions and social housing but also finds that there is no coherent and coordinated national approach towards inclusion, no long-term solutions and that in practice segregation of RSC has not yet been overcome. Furthermore, the Committee notes that there is a lack of data on forced evictions, whether alternative accommodation is provided, on what legal remedies is available and if sufficient resources had been invested to improve access for RSC to social housing. The committee finds that most of the measures referred to in the report are still underway and finds that the situation has still not been brought fully into conformity with the Charter provisions invoked.

Conclusion

In none of the total 46 decisions concerned in the findings of 2021 did the committee find that the violations identified had been fully remedied and, therefore, did not close the follow-up procedure in any of them. In several of collective complaints concerning the right to housing, it found that some progress had been made but that the situations were still not entirely in conformity with the requirements of the Charter. The committee calls upon the concerned States to make the necessary efforts to implement the decisions. Although it also acknowledges that some of the situations examined are complex and require significant time and resources to bring them into conformity with the Charter. In regard to housing rights, one of these complex issues that many states are struggling with is the housing rights of Roma, Travellers and other nomadic communities.

The European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) has also made public its conclusions for 2021 where it examined the provisions of the European Social Charter relating to health, social security and social protection. An analysis on this can be found in a separate piece of news here.

Further reading 

European Committee of Social Rights: Findings 2021