New Decisions on FEANTSA Complaints Strengthen Housing Rights Standards

Professor Padraic Kenna

Public and political debates on human rights often ignore commitments made by European States to uphold housing rights. The Council of Europe’s European Social Charter (1961)(ESC) and Revised Charter (1996)(RESC) adopted by all European States, provide such standards relating to adequate and secure housing for families, prevention of homelessness, housing affordability, housing standards and protection for minorities.

Through the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter, FEANTSA has sought clarification on the nature and extent of Charter housing rights obligations towards homeless, marginalised and vulnerable people, as well as indicators for rights-based housing policy.

The case of FEANTSA v France established a historic framework for measuring the implementation of socio-economic rights, particularly when this is expensive, by requiring States to demonstrate practical and effective measures toward achieving housing goals:

a. adopt the necessary legal, financial, and operational means of ensuring steady progress towards achieving the goals laid down by the Charter;

b. maintain meaningful statistics on needs, resources, and results; 

c. undertake regular reviews of the impact of the strategies adopted; 

d. establish a timetable and not defer indefinitely the deadline for achieving the objectives of each stage; 

e. pay close attention to the impact of the policies adopted on each of the categories of persons concerned, particularly the most vulnerable.

Following this landmark case, two further European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) decisions in 2025 clarified these European State housing rights obligations.

In FEANTSA v the Czech Republic[1] The ECSR recalled that Article 16 ESC, an article which binds all European States, imposes obligations in respect of family housing, as stated in ERRC v Greece. Housing is considered essential for family life and for the enjoyment of many other rights. To comply with this obligation, States must:

• ensure an adequate supply of housing for families,
• integrate family needs into housing policies,
• guarantee that existing housing meets adequate standards, and
• protect families from unlawful eviction.

The ECSR also highlighted that Article 16 ESC and Article 31 RESC overlap, since both require States to secure adequate housing and safeguard against forced evictions (COHRE v Italy).[2]

The ECSR found that “Czech Republic legislation permitted the eviction of individuals and families, including those living in hostels in socially excluded localities, without requiring the authorities to provide alternative accommodation.”[3] This amounted to a violation of Article 16 of the ESC.[4]

The ECSR reiterated the obligations on States Parties to ensure that legal protection for persons threatened with eviction must be prescribed by law. This protection includes an obligation to consult the affected parties in order to find alternative solutions to eviction; an obligation to fix a reasonable notice period before eviction; a prohibition to carry out evictions at night or during winter; access to legal remedies; access to legal aid; and compensation in case of illegal evictions. Furthermore, when evictions do take place, they must be carried out under conditions respecting the dignity of the persons concerned; governed by rules sufficiently protective of the rights of the persons; and accompanied by proposals for alternative accommodation.[5]

The ECSR recalled that States Parties must adopt appropriate measures for the provision of housing, in particular social housing, which should target the most disadvantaged.[6] There was a violation of Article 16 on the grounds that the supply of social housing was inadequate and that remedies in this regard were not effective.

The ECSR also held that there was a violation of Article 16, as access to housing benefits for low-income and disadvantaged groups of the Czech Republic population in “socially excluded” localities has not been effectively guaranteed.

The ECSR found that these issues disproportionately affected Roma families, since a significant proportion of this minority lived in these “socially excluded” localities, including hostels with limited security of tenure. As evictions occurred without genuine consultation or provision of alternative accommodation, there was a disproportionate impact upon disadvantaged Roma families.[7] Additionally, housing benefits were limited to approved hostels, and since significant numbers of Roma lived in unapproved hostels in socially excluded areas and faced disproportionate obstacles to claiming this benefit. This amounted to discrimination in access to housing.[8]

The second case of FEANTSA v Belgium[9] was taken together with Woonzaak – a coalition of over 70 right to housing advocacy organisations in Flanders, Belgium. This focused on the effect of Flemish housing policies, which primarily favour owner-occupation over the rental sector. While Belgium has devolved many powers to the Flanders Region, the ECSR emphasised that the primary responsibility for implementing the European Social Charter lies with national authorities, and the State must be able to show that local authorities have taken effective action.[10]

The Belgian Government has justified its policy of promoting home ownership on the basis of its benefits for housing security, providing financial relief for ageing households, as well as fostering stability and resilience against economic shocks, although there have recently been moves towards a more balanced tenure policy.

FEANTSA referred to the “Matthew effect”, whereby 53% of housing subsidies accrue to the highest 40% of earners, a subsidy that rose to 70% when tax advantages benefitting homeowners was added. While FEANTSA acknowledged that prioritising home ownership can be a legitimate policy choice, it was noted that the rental sector has become increasingly residual, marked by limited choice, poor quality, and an imbalance of power in favour of landlords, who can impose unfair conditions.[11] Indeed, some 250,000 households, or 50% of private renters in 2018, needed housing support.[12] The share of social rented homes is 6% - low by many European standards, while waiting lists were increasing.[13]

The ECSR stated that an approach which relies solely on the market to ensure access to housing is incompatible with Article 16 of the Social Charter, as it does not adequately guarantee that the needs of vulnerable groups are met.[14] There must be an adequate supply of affordable housing.[15] Lengthy waiting lists for social housing may, in themselves, constitute a violation of Article 31§3 RESC In this case, waiting times of two years and four months were considered excessive.[16] The ECSR therefore found a violation of Article 16 of the Charter in this respect.[17]

The ECSR also addressed the ineffectiveness of mechanisms for enforcing housing quality standards, which rely too heavily on tenant reporting. At the bottom of the rental market, tenants can be evicted if the dwelling is found to be unfit. State Parties must show how the existing housing stock (whether rented or not, privately, or publicly owned) is checked for adequacy, whether regular inspections are carried out and what follow-up is given to decisions finding that a dwelling does not comply with the relevant regulation.[18]

The ECSR also concluded that Belgium had breached Article 16 ESC for a number of other reasons. Three areas were identified. Firstly, the authorities failed to systematically collect data on evictions and homelessness. This made it impossible to assess the scale of the problem or design effective responses. Secondly, the increasing prevalence of short-term rental contracts instead of standard nine-year leases undermined tenants' stability and security. Thirdly, the measures taken to prevent forced evictions were deemed insufficient, leaving many households without adequate protection. Together, these failings constituted a violation of families’ right to housing under the Charter.[19]

The ECSR also concluded that Flemish rules on eligibility for social housing, such as the local connection requirement implemented in 43 Flemish towns or municipalities that prioritised applicants based on their place of birth, were neither objective nor reasonable, and were discriminatory on the grounds of socio-economic status and race.[20]

As regards discrimination in access to private rental housing, the ECSR noted that the Flemish Region focuses on awareness raising measures, but (tenant) victims are reluctant to file complaints because rental discrimination is insidious and difficult to prove, and the procedures are complex, with little prospect of effective redress.[21]

Despite a discrimination prohibition which applies to access to goods and services, only three cases of rental discrimination had been decided by a formal judgment between 2014 and 2020.[22]  The ECSR  therefore found a violation of Article E read in conjunction with Article 16 of the Charter on the grounds of the failure to ensure the practical implementation of the prohibition of discrimination regarding access to rental housing.[23]

The ECSR concluded that the policy based on the support of home ownership pursued by the Flemish Region has had a detrimental effect on the ability of vulnerable groups to enjoy the right to housing. Simultaneously, the measures taken to improve housing affordability for vulnerable groups have been inadequate, there was an insufficient supply of social housing, and the limited reach of rent allowances contributed in particular to this situation. The ECSR therefore found a violation of Article 16 ESC in this respect.[24]

These recent ECSR Decisions reaffirm that housing is a fundamental right, essential to family life and human dignity. They underline that governments must go beyond policy commitments to ensure effective implementation and tangible results, as shown by cases ranging from evictions in the Czech Republic to the impact of Flemish housing policies.

These decisions make clear that the market alone cannot guarantee housing for vulnerable groups. States must expand social housing, strengthen protections against evictions, combat discrimination, and ensure decent housing standards. They are also required to collect reliable data and adopt policies that can be monitored and evaluated.

For FEANTSA and its partners, these are clear benchmarks for governments, civil society, and advocates upon which to hold authorities accountable and to promote housing policies grounded in housing rights.