No. 80/2012 Pensioner’s Union of the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012.
It concerns recent legislation in Greece which
impose a reduction of pensions primarily in the
public sector. The complainant organisation
alleges that these laws are in violation of Articles
12§3 (Right to social security) and 31§1 (Right to
housing) of the 1961 Charter.
No. 79/2012 Panhellenic Federation of pensioners of the public electricity corporation (POS-DEI) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012. It
concerns recent legislation in Greece which impose a
reduction of pensions primarily in the public sector.
The complainant organisation alleges that these laws
are in violation of Articles 12§3 (Right to social
security) and 31§1 (Right to housing) of the 1961
Charter.
No. 78/2012
Pensioners’ Union of the Athens-Piraeus Electric Railways (I.S.A.P.) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012.
It concerns recent legislation in Greece which
impose a reduction of pensions primarily in the
public sector. The complainant organisation
alleges that these laws are in violation of Articles
12§3 (Right to social security) and 31§1 (Right to
housing) of the 1961 Charter.
No. 77/2012 Panhellenic Federation of Public Service Pensioners v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012.
It concerns recent legislation in Greece which
impose a reduction of pensions primarily in the
public sector. The complainant organisation
alleges that these laws are in violation of Articles
12§3 (Right to social security) and 31§1 (Right to
housing) of the 1961 Charter.
No. 76/2012 Federation of employed pensioners of Greece ((IKA –ETAM)
v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 2 January 2012.
The complainant trade union alleges that recent legislation passed in Greece
(Law No. 3845 of 6 May 2010, Law No. 3847 of 11 May 2010,
Law No. 3863 of 15 July 2010, Law No. 3865 of 21 July 2010,
Law No.3896 of 1 July 2011 and Law No. 4024 of 27 October 2011) impose a reduction in pension schemes, both in the private and public sectors,
and are in violation of Articles 12§3 (Right to social security) and 31§1 (Right to housing) of the 1961 Charter.
No. 75/2011
International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) v. Belgium
The complaint was registered on
13 December 2011.
It concerns the situation of highly dependent disabled adults
in need of reception facilities and accommodation, and their relatives.
The complainant organisation alleges that Belgium
has not taken adequate measures to comply with Articles 13 (right to social and medical assistance), 14 (right to benefit from social welfare services),
15 (the right of persons with disabilities), 16 (right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection for the family), taken alone or in combination with Article E (non discrimination)
of the European Social Charter (Revised).
No. 74/2011
Fellesforbundet for Sjøfolk (FFFS) v. Norway
The complaint was registered on 27 September 2011.
It concerns the compulsory retirement of seamen in
Norway. The complainant trade union considers that the upper age limit of 62 years in the Norwegian Seamen's Act in reality implies an unjustified work ban and is thus a discriminatory withdrawal of seamen's rights to work as seamen, in breach
of Articles
1 §§ 1 and2(Right to work) and 24 (Right to protection in case of dismissal), read alone or in conjunction with Article
E (non discrimination) of the Charter.
No. 73/2011
Syndicat de Défense des Fonctionnaires v. France
The complaint was registered on 19 July 2011.
It concerns the situation of so-called " redeployed” civil servants, employed by France Télécom and La Poste, who have remained at the grades of the former Post and Telecommunications service.
The complainant trade union alleges failure to acknowledge discrimination,
breach of the right to information, denial of the
right to career development and of the right to
social security for this category of employee within
the above-mentioned companies, in violation of
Articles 2 (the right to just conditions of work),
12 (the right to social security), 20 (right to
equal opportunities and equal treatment in matters
of employment and occupation without discrimination
on the grounds of sex) and E (non discrimination) of
the Revised Social Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011.
No. 72/2011 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 8 July 2011.
It concerns the effects of massive environmental pollution on the health of
persons living near the Asopos river and in
proximity to the industrial zone of Inofyta, located 50 km north of Athens. The complainant organisation alleges that the
State has not taken
adequate measures to eliminate or reduce these dangerous effects and to ensure the right to health protection, in violation of Article 11 (right to health) of the Social Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011.
No. 71/2011 Association of Care Giving Relatives and Friends
v. Finland
The complaint was registered on 6 July 2011. The complainant
organisation alleges that by failing to lay down
rules with regard to the cost of caring for the
elderly in municipal nursing homes, Finland is in
breach of provisions of Articles 13 (right to social and medical assistance), 14 (right to benefit from social welfare services), 16 (right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection for the family) and 23 (right of elderly persons to social protection) of the
Revised Social Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7
December 2011.
No. 70/2011 Association of Care Giving Relatives and Friends
v. Finland
The complaint was registered on 6 July 2011. It concerns the situation of
family and friend caregivers in Finland. The complainant organisation alleges
that the system of financial support for family and
friend caregivers is not equal, as it varies
according to their place of residence in Finland.
The complainant organisation invokes Article 23
(right of elderly persons to social protection) of
the Revised Social Charter).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011.
No. 69/2011 Defence for Children International (DCI) v. Belgium
The complaint was registered on 21 June 2011.
The complainant organisation alleges that foreign children living accompanied or not, either as illegal residents or asylum seekers in Belgium, are currently excluded from social assistance
in breach of Articles 7§10 (Special protection against physical and moral dangers), 11 (right to health), 13 (right to social and medical assistance), 16 (right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection for the family), 17 (right of children and young persons to appropriate social, legal and economic protection) and 30 (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion) alone or read in conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of the European Social Charter (revised).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7
December 2011.
No. 68/2011 European Council of Police Trade Unions
(CESP) v. France
The complaint was registered on 18 May 2011.
The complainant organisation alleges that the new regulations concerning working conditions for police officers, as from 1 April 2008, removing payment for overtime worked or compensatory time off (Decree No. 2000-194 of 3 March 2000 modified by Decree No. 2008-340 of 15 April 2008, General Rules of Application of the National Police of 6 June 2006 modified by ministerial Decree NOR IOCC0804409A of 15 April 2008 and Directive NOR INTC0800092C of 17 April 2008), is in breach of Article 4 § 2 (right to a fair remuneration) of the Revised Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 13 September 2011.
No. 67/2011 Médecins du Monde -
International v. France
The complaint was registered on 19 April 2011.
According to the complainant organisation the rights
of Roma living in France with regard to housing,
education for their children, social protection and
health care are not respected, in breach of Articles
11 (right to health), 13 (right to social and
medical assistance), 16 (right to appropriate
social, legal and economic protection for the
family), 17 (right of children and young persons to
appropriate social, legal and economic protection),
19§8 (guarantees concerning expulsion), 30 (right to
protection against poverty and social exclusion) and
31 (right to housing) of the Revised European Social
Charter, read alone or in conjunction with the non
discrimination clause in Article E.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 13
September 2011.
No. 66/2011 General Federation of employees of the national electric
power corporation (GENOP-DEI)
/ Confederation of Greek Civil Servants’ Trade Unions (ADEDY)
v. Greece
The complaint was registered on
21 February 2011.
According to the complainant
trade unions the measures relating to remuneration
and working conditions contained in Act No.
3899/2010 of 17 December 2010 are in violation of
Articles 1 (right to work) , 4 (right to a fair
remuneration), 7 (the right of children and young
persons to protection), 10 (right to vocational
training), and 12 (right to social security) of the
European Social Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 30 June 2011.
No. 65/2011 General Federation of employees of the
national electric power corporation (GENOP-DEI)
/ Confederation of Greek Civil Servants’ Trade Unions (ADEDY) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on
21 February 2011.
According to the complainant trade unions the
measures relating to remuneration and working
conditions contained in Act No. 3899/2010 of 17
December 2010 are in violation of Article 4 (right
to a fair remuneration) of the European Social
Charter and Article 3 of the Additional Protocol of
1988 (right to take part in the determination and
improvement of the working conditions and working environment).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 30 June 2011.
No. 64/2011 European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF)
v. France
The complaint was registered on 28 January 2011.
According to the complainant
organisation the French Government continues to forcibly evict Roma without providing suitable
alternative accommodation and that Roma in France continue to suffer discrimination in access to housing,
in violation of Articles 16 (right of the family to social, legal and economic protection), 19§8 (guarantees concerning expulsion), 30 (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion) and 31 (right to housing) of the Revised European Social Charter, read alone or in conjunction with the non discrimination clause in Article E.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 11 May 2011.
No. 63/2010 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)
v. France
The complaint was registered on 15 November 2010.
It concerns the eviction and expulsion of Roma from their homes and from France
during the summer of 2010. The complainant
organisation alleges that such evictions and
expulsions amount to violations of Article 31 (right
to housing) and Article 19§8 (guarantees concerning
expulsion) of the Revised Charter. The complainant
organisation also argues that the facts at stake
constitute discrimination (Article E) in the
enjoyment of the above mentioned rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 25 January
2011.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article E in conjunction
with Articles 31§2 and 19§8 of the Revised Charter
and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 13
July 2011.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)8
on 9 November 2011.
No. 62/2010 International Federation of Human Rights
( FIDH )
v. Belgium
The complaint was registered on 30 septembre 2010.
The complainant organisation alleges a violation of
rights related to housing for Travellers under the
European Social Charter. The complaint concerns the
insufficiency of stopping places, problems stemming
from the non recognition of caravans as a home; lack
of respect of the required conditions when carrying
out evictions, lack of a global and coordinated
policy to combat poverty and social exclusion of
Travellers, among other issues. These allegations
concern Article 16 (the right of the family to
social, legal and economic protection) and 30 (right
to protection against poverty and social exclusion)
of the Revised European Social Charter as well as
the non discrimination clause (Article E).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 1 December
2010.
No. 61/2010 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC)
v. Portugal
The complaint was registered on 23 April 2010. The
complainant organisation pleads a violation of
Articles 16 (the right of the family to social,
legal and economic protection), 30 (right to
protection against poverty and social exclusion) and
31 (right to housing), read alone or in conjunction
with Article E (non discrimination) of the Revised
Charter. The ERRC maintains that the sum of housing-related
injustices in Portugal (including problems of access
to social housing, substandard quality of housing,
lack of access to basic utilities, residential
segregation of Romani communities and other systemic
violations of the right to housing) violates these
provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 17
September
2010.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 16,
30 and 31§1, read alone or in conjunction
with Article E, of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on
1 July 2011.
No. 60/2010 European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP)
v. Portugal
The complaint registered on 18 March 2010, relates to Article 4§§1
and 2 (right to adequate remuneration and right to
increased rate of remuneration for overtime work), Article 6§§1
and 2 (right to collective bargaining:
joint consultation and machinery for voluntary
negotiations) and Article 22 (right to take part in the
determination and improvement of the working
conditions and working environment) of the Revised
European Social Charter. The CESP claims that that Portuguese legislation does not allow the the
investigative personnel of the Criminal
Police to receive compensation for overtime
work. The CESP also contends that the Portuguese state refuses
to negotiate on this matter with national trade unions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 22 June
2010.
No. 59/2009 European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)/
Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de
Belgique (CGSLB)/ Confédération des Syndicats
chrétiens de Belgique (CSC)/ Fédération
Générale du Travail de Belgique (FGTB) v.
Belgium
The complaint was registered on 22 June 2009. The
complainant organisations allege that the situation
in Belgium is not in conformity with the rights laid
down in Article 6§4 (right to strike) of the Revised
Charter. They believe
that judicial intervention in social conflicts in
Belgium, in particular concerning restrictions
imposed on the action of picket line, violate this
provision.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 8
December 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 6§4 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 16
September 2011.
No. 58/2009 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)
v. Italy
The complaint was registered on 29 May 2009. The
complainant organisation pleads a violation of
Articles 16 (the right of the family to social, legal
and economic protection), 19 (right of migrant
workers and their families to protection and
assistance), 30 (right to protection against poverty
and social exclusion) and 31 (right to housing),
read alone or in conjunction with Article E (non
discrimination) of the Revised Charter. The
complainant organisation alleges that the recent
so-called emergency security measures and racist and
xenophobic discourse have resulted in unlawful
campaigns and evictions leading to homelessness and
expulsions, disproportionately targeting Roma and Sinti.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 8
December 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 16,
19, 30 and 31 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 6
July 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2010)8 on
21 October 2010.
No. 57/2009 European Council of Police Trade Unions
(CESP) v. France
The complaint was registered on 7 May 2009. The CESP
claims that the new regulations introduced by the
French government on 27 February 2008 (Decree No.
2008-199 modifying Article 3 of Decree No. 2000-194
of 3 March 2000), laying down the conditions for the
granting of a payment for extra services to
operational members of the national police force,
are in breach of Article 4§2 (right to a fair
remuneration) of the Revised Charter, because it
establishes - regardless of the grade and step - a
fixed compensation system.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7
September 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 4§2 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 3
December 2010.
No. 56/2009 Confédération Française de
l’Encadrement (CFE-CGC) v. France
The complaint, registered on 4 May 2009, relates to
Articles 1 (the right to work), 2 (the right to just
conditions of work), 3 (the right to safe and
healthy working conditions), 4 (right to a fair
remuneration), 20 (right to equal opportunities and
equal treatment in matters of employment and
occupation without discrimination on the grounds of
sex), and 27 (right of workers with family
responsibilities to equal opportunities and equal
treatment), read alone or in conjunction with
Article E (non discrimination), of the Revised Charter. The CFE-CGC
claims that the new regulations on working time
introduced in France on 20 August 2008 (Act
N°2008-789) violate these provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 29 June 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 2§1and 4§2 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 13
September 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)5
on 6 April 2011.
No. 55/2009 Confédération Générale du
Travail (CGT) v. France
The complaint, lodged on 21 January 2009, relates to
Articles 2 (the right to just conditions of work)
and 4
(the right to a fair remuneration). The CGT (Confédération
Générale du Travail) claims that the new
regulations on working time introduced in France on
20 August 2008 (Act n° 2008-789) violates these
provisions).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 30 March 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 2§1,
2§5
and 4§2 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 13
September 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)4
on 6 April 2011.
No. 54/2008 European Council of Police
Trade Unions (CESP) v. France
The CESP (European Council of Police Trade Unions)
claims that the new regulations introduced by the
French Government on 15 April 2008 (General
Regulations on Employment in the National Police
Service and General Instruction on the organisation
of working hours in the National Police Service) are
in breach of Article 2§1 on the grounds that it is
impossible to ascertain whether daily and weekly
police working hours are reasonable because such
working hours are not recorded. The CESP also
contends that the flat, ie non-increased, rate of
remuneration for overtime work provided for in the
new regulations of 17 April 2008 (the General
Regulations on the National Police Service and
Instruction NOR INTC0800092c) infringes Article 4§2
(because the rate of remuneration for overtime work,
where the latter is taken into consideration, is
based on a rate below the hourly rate for police
officers, and where compensation is available in the
form of rest periods, such compensation is
ineffective.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 17 February 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 2§1
and 4§2 and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 3
December 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)1
on 19 January 2011.
No. 53/2008 European Federation of National
Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. Slovenia
The complaint was registered on 28 August 2008. The
complainant organisation pleads a violation of
Articles 31 (right to housing) and 16 (the right of
the family to social, legal and economic
protection), read alone or in conjunction with
Article E (non discrimination) of the Revised
Charter. In support of its request, the complainant
organisation alleges that a vulnerable group of
persons occupying denationalised flats in the
Republic of Slovenia have been deprived of their
occupancy titles and subjected to eviction. As the
persons concerned were denied access to
alternative housing in the long term, they have now
become homeless. These measures have also resulted
in housing problems for the families of the evicted
persons.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 2 December 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 31 of
the Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers
on 29 September 2009.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)7
on 15 June 2011.
No. 52/2008 Centre on Housing Rights and
Evictions(COHRE) v. Croatia
The complaint was registered on 25 August 2008. The
complainant organisation pleads a violation of
Article 16 of the Charter (the right of the family
to social, legal and economic protection), read
alone or in conjunction with Article E (non
discrimination) of the Charter, on the grounds that
the ethnic Serb population displaced during the war
in Croatia has been subjected to discriminatory
treatment as the families have not been allowed to
reoccupy their former dwellings prior to the
conflict, nor have they been granted financial
compensation for the loss of their homes.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint
admissible on 30 March 2009.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 16 read
in the light f the non-discrimination clause of the
Preamble to the Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 7
July 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)6
on 5 May 2011.
No. 51/2008 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v.
France
The complaint was registered on 17 April 2008. The
complainant organisation pleads a violation of
Articles 16 (right of the family to social, legal
and economic protection), 19 (right of migrant
workers and their families to protection and
assistance), 30 (right to protection against poverty
and social exclusion) and 31 (right to housing),
read alone or in conjunction with Article E
(non-discrimination), on the grounds that Travellers
in France are victims of injustice with regard to
access to housing, inter alia social exclusion,
forced eviction as well as residential segregation,
substandard housing conditions and lack of security.
Furthermore, France has failed to take measures to
address the deplorable living conditions of Romani
migrants from other Council of Europe member states.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on
23 September 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles
31§§1 and 2, Article E taken in conjunction with
Article 31, Article 16 and Article E in conjunction
with Article 16, Article 30 and Article E taken in
conjunction with Article 30 and Article 19§4c of the
Revised Charter and transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 26
October 2009.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2010)5
on 30 June 2010.
No. 50/2008 Confédération française démocratique du
travail (CFDT) v. France
The complaint was registered on 1 April 2008. It is
alleged that the rules governing the integration of
civilians working for the French forces based in
Germany into the French administration, following
the dissolution of these forces are not in
conformity with the rights laid down in Articles 4
(right to a fair remuneration), 12 (right to social
security), 18 (right to engage in a gainful
occupation in the territory of other Parties) and 19
(right of migrant workers and their families to
protection and assistance) alone or read in
conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of
the European Social Charter (revised).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 September 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 4, 12, 18
and 19 in conjunction with Article E and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 29 September 2009.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2009)8
on 9 December 2009.
No. 49/2008 International Centre for the Legal
Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS) v. Greece
The complaint was registered on 28 March 2008. It is
alleged that the Greek Government continues to
forcibly evict Roma without providing suitable
alternative accommodation. It also alleges that the
Roma in Greece continue to suffer discrimination in
access to housing in violation of Article 16 of the
European Social Charter (Right of the family to
social, legal and economic protection) alone or in
conjunction with the non discrimination clause in
the Preamble.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 September 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was aviolation of Article 16 of
the European Social Charter (revised) and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 25 January 2010.
The Committee of Ministers adopted adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2011)1 on 6 July 2011.
No. 48/2008 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Bulgaria
The complaint registered on 28 March 2008 relates to
Article 13§1 (the right to social and medical
assistance) alone or in conjunction with Article E
(non discrimination) of the Revised European Social
Charter. It is alleged that Bulgarian legislation as
from 01/01/2008 will no longer ensure the right to
adequate social assistance to unemployed persons
without adequate resources. This will notably affect
Roma and women.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 2 June 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 13§1 of
the European Social Charter (revised), and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 31 March 2009.
The Committee of Ministers adopted adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2010) 2 on 31 March
2010.
No. 47/2008, Defence for Children International v.
The Netherlands
The complaint was registered on 4 February 2008. It
is alleged that Dutch legislation deprives children
residing illegally in The Netherlands of the right
to housing (Article 31) and consequently of a series
of additional rights laid down in Articles 11 (right
to health), 13 (right to social and medical
assistance), 16 (right to appropriate social, legal
and economic protection for the family), 17 (right
of children and young persons to appropriate social,
legal and economic protection) and 30 (right to
protection against poverty and social exclusion)
alone or read in conjunction with Article E
(non-discrimination) of the European Social Charter
(revised).
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 September 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 31§2
and 17§1.c of
the European Social Charter (revised), and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 27 October 2009.
The Committee of Ministers adopted adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2010)6 on 7 July
2010.
No. 46/2007, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Bulgaria
The complaint registered on 22 October 2007 relates
to Article 11 (right to health) and Article 13
(right to social and medical assistance) alone or in
conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged
that legislation excludes a large number of Roma
persons from health insurance coverage, that
government policies do not adequately address the
specific health risks affecting Romani communities,
and that there is widespread discriminatory
practices on the part of health care practitioners
against Roma in the provision of health services.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 5 February 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article11§§1, 2 and 3,
in conjunction with Article E, and of Article 13§1,
and transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 3 December 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2010)1 on 31 March
2010.
No. 45/2007, International Centre for the Legal Protection of
Human Rights (INTERIGHTS) v. Croatia
The complaint registered on 12 October 2007 relates to Article
11 (right to health), Article 16 (right of the family to social,
legal and economic protection) and Article 17 (right of children
and young persons to social, legal and economic protection) of
the European Social Charter. It is alleged that Croatian schools
do not provide comprehensive or adequate sexual and reproductive
health education for children and young people.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 1 April 2008.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 11§2 of the European
Social Charter and transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 9 April 2009.
The Commitee of Ministers adopted Resolution Res
(2009)7 on 21 October 2009.
No. 44/2007, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
(IHF) v. Bulgaria
The complaint registered on 8 August 2007 relates to Article
13§1 (the right to social and medical assistance) alone or in
conjunction with Article E (non discrimination) of the Revised
European Social Charter. It is alleged that Bulgarian
legislation as from 01/01/2008 will no longer ensure the right
to adequate social assistance to unemployed persons without
adequate resources. This will notably affect Roma and women.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 3 December 2007.
On 5 March 2008, as a result of the insolvency
proceedings of the complainant organisation which
now lacks the capacity to take part in further
proceedings in respect of this complaint, the
European Committee of Social Rights decided to
strike out the case from the list of complaints
.
No. 43/2007, Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público (SMMP)
v. Portugal
The complaint registered on 17 April 2007 relates to Article
12§1, 2, 3 (the right to social security) of the Revised European
Social Charter. It is alleged that staff of the Public
Prosecutor’s Office in Portugal are excluded from the Social
Welfare Service of the Ministry of Justice (Legislative Decree
No. 212/2005 of 9 December 2005)
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 16 October 2007.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 12§3 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 9 December 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2009)2 on 21
January 2009.
No. 42/2007, International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) v.
Ireland
The complaint registered on 26 February 2007 relates to Article
23 (the right of elderly persons to social protection) read in
conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) and to Article
12§4 (the right to social security) of the Revised European
Social Charter. It is alleged that the situation constitutes a
discrimination against persons in receipt of Irish Contributory
Old Age Pensions who do not reside permanently in Ireland in
that they do not have access to the Free Travel scheme when they
return to Ireland.
The European Committee of Social Rights
declared the complaint admissible on
16 October 2007.
The European Committee of Social Rights
concluded that there was no violation of
Articles 23 and 12§4 in conjunction with
Article Eand transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the
Committee of Ministers
on 4 July 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2008)9 on 21
January 2009.
No. 41/2007, Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v.
Bulgaria
The complaint registered on 20 February 2007 relates to
Article 17§2 (the right of children and young persons to
social, legal and economic protection) taken alone and
in conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that
children living in Homes for Mentally Disabled Children
in Bulgaria receive no education.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared
the complaint admissible on 27 June 2007.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded that there
was violation of Article 17§2 alone and in conjunction with
Article E of the Revised Charter and transmitted its
report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to the
Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 10
June 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2010)7
on 20 September 2010.
No. 40/2007, European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP)
v. Portugal
The complaint registered on 7 February 2007 relates to
Articles 6§§1-2 (the right to bargain collectively), 21 (the
right to information and consultation) and 22 (the right to
take part in the determination and improvement of the
working conditions and working environment) of the Revised
European Social Charter. It is alleged that in practice
police officers do not enjoy these rights in Portugal.
The European Committee on Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 21 May 2007
The European Committee on Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 6§§1 and 2,
21 and 22 and transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 10
October 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution CM/ResChS(2009)1 on 21
January 2009.
No. 39/2006 European Federation of National Organisations
Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. France
The complaint registered on 2 November 2006 relates to Article
31 (the right to housing) of the Revised European Social
Charter. It is alleged that the manner in which legislation
related to housing is implemented in France results in a
situation of non conformity with this Article.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 19 March 2007.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was violation of Articles 31§§1 and 2
and Article 31§3 in conjunction with Article E of
the revised European Social Charter and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and the Committee of Ministers on 4 February 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution Res ChS (2008)8 on 2 July 2008.
No. 38/2006 European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP) v.
France
The complaint was lodged on 20 October 2006 and relates to the
Article 4§2 (right to increased rate of remuneration for
overtime work) of the Revised European Social Charter. It is
alleged that the French legislation does not allow the Operational Command Corps of the National Police Force, which is
classified as an A-grade body within the national civil service,
to receive compensation for the overtime worked as a result of
anti-governmental demonstrations held in France in the first
half of 2006.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 19 March 2007.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 4§2 of the
Revised European Social Charterand transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2007.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2008)6 on 23 April 2008.
No. 37/2006 European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP) v.
Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 29 September 2006, relates to Article 4
§§ 1-2 (right to adequate remuneration and right to increased
rate of remuneration for overtime work) and Article 6 §§1-2
(right to collective bargaining: joint consultation and
machinery for voluntary negotiations) of the Revised European
Social Charter. It is alleged that the Portuguese state has not
observed the democratic rules of collective bargaining, having
decided unilaterally to apply to the criminal investigation
personnel of the Criminal Police a rule reducing their basic pay
by 25%, thus avoiding payment of the on-call bonus.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 5 December 2006.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of the Revised European
Social Charterand transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2007.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2008)5 on 27 February 2008.
No. 36/2006 Frente Comum de Sindicatos da Administração Pública
v. Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 3 July 2006, relates in particular to
Article 6§2 (the right to bargain collectively) of the revised
Social Charter. It alleges a breach of the right to collective
bargaining and discrimination, since the Government refused to
continue negotiations with the complainant organisation on
issues related to the General Employees’ Statute.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint inadmissible on 5 December 2006.
No. 35/2006 Federation of Finnish Enterprises v. Finland
The complaint, lodged on 30 June 2006, relates to Article 5 (freedom
to organise). It is alleged that legislation violates the right
to organise since it contains stricter provisions for
enterprises not belonging to an employers’ organisation than for
those which belong to such an organisation.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 5 December 2006.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 5 of the
Revised European Social Charter and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 26 October 2007.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS
(2008) 2 on 16 January 2008.
No. 34/2006 World Organisation Against Torture v. Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 31 May 2006, relates to Article 17
(right of children and young persons to social, legal and
economic protection of the Revised Social Charter. It is alleged
that domestic law does not explicitly nor effectively prohibit
all corporal punishment of children.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 12 June 2006.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
unanimously that there was violation of Article 17
and transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers
on 22 January 2007.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2008)4 on 27 February 2008.
No. 33/2006 International Movement ATD Fourth World v. France
The complaint, lodged on 1 February 2006, relates to Article 16
(right of the family to social, legal and economic protection),
Article 30 (right to protection against poverty and social
exclusion), Article 31 (right to housing) alone or in
combination with Article E (non-discrimination) of the Revised
Social Charter. It alleges violations of the right to housing of
persons in extreme poverty.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 12 June 2006.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 30 (alone and
in conjunction with Article E), 31§§1 and 2 and 31§3
in conjunction with Article E of the revised
European Social Charter and transmitted its
report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 4 February 2008.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution Res
ChS (2008)7 on 2 July 2008.
No. 32/2005 European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC),
Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB),
Confederation of Labour “Podkrepa” (CL “Podkrepa”) v. Bulgaria
The complaint, lodged on 16 June 2005, relates to Article 6§4
(right to strike) of the Revised European Social Charter. It is
alleged that the right to strike is restricted in several
sectors of the economy in a manner that is not in conformity
with the Revised Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 November 2005.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was violation of Article 6§4 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 29 November 2006.
No. 31/2005 European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) v. Bulgaria
The complaint, lodged on 22 April 2005, relates to Article 16
(right to social, economic, and legal protection) alone or in
combination with Article E (non-discrimination) of the Revised
European Social Charter. It is alleged that the situation of
Roma in Bulgaria amounts to a violation of the right to adequate
housing.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 October 2005.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was violation of Article 16 in
conjunction with Article E and transmitted its
report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 30 November
2006.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2007) 2 on 5 September 2007.
No. 30/2005 Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) v.
Greece
The complaint, lodged on 4 April 2005, relates to Article 11
(right to protection of health), Article 2§4 (right to reduced
working hours or additional holidays for workers in dangerous or
unhealthy occupations), Article 3§1 (safety and health
regulations at work) and Article 3§2 (provision for the
enforcement of safety and health regulations by measures of
supervision) of the European Social Charter. It is alleged that
in the main areas where lignite is mined, the State has not
adequately prevented the impact for the environment nor has
developed an appropriate strategy in order to prevent and
respond to the health hazards for the population. It is also
alleged that there is no legal framework guaranteeing security
and safety of persons working in lignite mines and that the
latter do not benefit from reduced working hours or additional
holidays.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 October 2005.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 2§4, 3§2 and
11§§1 to 3 and no violation of Article 3§1 of the
Charter and it transmitted its report containing its decision on the
merits to the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2006.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2008)1
on 16 January 2008.
No. 29/2005 Syndicat des hauts fonctionnaires (SAIGI) v. France
The complaint, lodged on 7 February 2005, relates to Article 5
(right to organise) of the Revised European Social Charter. It
is alleged that there are no effective remedies in the event of
a breach of the right to organise where the State is acting as
an employer.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint inadmissible on 14 June 2005.
No. 28/2004 Syndicat national des dermato-vénérologues (SNDV) v.
France
The complaint, lodged on 12 July 2004, relates to Article 1§2
(prohibition of all forms of discrimination in employment) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that the
applicable French regulation on fees for independent medical
doctors is discriminatory.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint inadmissible on 13 June 2005.
No. 27/2004 European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) v. Italy
The complaint, lodged on 28 June 2004, relates to Article 31
(right to housing) alone or in conjunction with Articles E
(non-discrimination) of the Revised European Social Charter. The
complaint alleges that the situation of Roma in Italy amounts to
a violation of Article 31 of the Revised European Social
Charter. In addition, it alleges that policies and practices in
the field of housing constitute, inter alia, racial
discrimination and racial segregation, both contrary to Article
31 alone or read in conjunction with Article E.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 6 December 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 31 of the
revised European Social Charter in conjunction with
Article E and transmitted its report containing its
report containing its decision on the
merits of the complaint to the Parties and to
the Committee of Ministers on 21 December 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2006)4 on 3 May 2006.
No. 26/2004 Syndicat des Agrégés de l’Enseignement Supérieur
(SAGES) v. France
The complaint, lodged on 27 April 2004, relates to Article 5
(right to organise) alone or in combination with Articles E
(non-discrimination), G (restrictions) and I (implementation of
the undertakings given) of the Revised European Social Charter.
It is alleged that French legislation impairs the freedom to
organise since Decree No. 89-1 on the National Council for
higher education and research (Conseil national de
l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche - CNESER) does not
guarantee collective legal remedies.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2004
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 5 alone or in
conjunction with Articles E, G and I of the Revised
European Social Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to the
Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 1July 2005.
The
Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution ResChS(2005)14 on 7
September 2005.
No. 25/2004 Centrale générale des services publics v. Belgium
The complaint, lodged on 23 February 2004, relates to Article
6§§1-2 (right to collective bargaining: joint consultation and
machinery for voluntary negotiations) of the European Social
Charter. It is alleged that Belgium does not guarantee the
effectiveness of the legislation on the exercise of the right to
collective bargaining in the Belgian public sector.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 6 September 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 6§§1-2 of the
European Social Charter and transmitted its report
containing its
decision on the merits of the complaint to the
Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 27 May
2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution ResChS(2005)13 on
7 July 2005.
No. 24/2004 Syndicat SUD Travail Affaires Sociales v. France
The complaint, lodged on 6 February 2004, relates to Article 1§2
(prohibition of all forms of discrimination in employment) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that under
the Labour Code (Article L.122-45) numerous categories of
workers are excluded from the protection against discrimination
in employment.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 7 December 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 1§2 of the
Revised European Social Charter and transmitted its
report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 20
November 2005
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution ResChS(2006)5
on 12 July 2006.
No. 23/2003 Syndicat occitan de l’éducation v. France
The complaint, lodged on 18 November 2003, relates to Articles 5
(right to organise) and 6 (right to collective bargaining) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that the
prohibition on non-representative professional organisation from
presenting candidates in professional elections violates these
provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 13 February 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 5 and 6§1 of
the Revised European Social Charter and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to the
Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 8
September 2004.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2004)6 on 17 November 2004.
No. 22/2003 Confédération générale du travail (CGT) v. France
The complaint, lodged on 24 October 2003, relates to Articles 2
(right to just conditions of work), 3 (right to safe and healthy
working conditions) and 11 (right to protection of health) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that the
provisions of Act No. 2003-47 of 17 January 2003 (known as the
“loi Fillon II”) relating to wages, working time and development
of employment violate these provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 9 February 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 2§1 of the
Revised European Social Charter and transmitted its
report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to the
Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 8
September 2004.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2005)8 on 4 May 2005.
No. 21/2003 World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Belgium
The complaint, lodged on 23 September 2003, relates to Article
17 (the right of mothers and children to social and economic
protection) of the European Social Charter. It is alleged that
Belgium has not effectively prohibited all corporal punishment
of children, nor has it prohibited any other form of degrading
punishment or treatment of children and provided adequate
sanctions in penal or civil law.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 9 December 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 26 January 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution ResChS(2005)10 on 8 June 2005.
No. 20/2003 World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v.
Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 31 July 2003, relates to Article 17
(the right of children and young persons to social, legal and
economic protection) of the Revised European Social Charter. It
is alleged that Portuguese law has not effectively prohibited
corporal punishment of children, nor has it prohibited other
forms of degrading punishment or treatment of children and
provided adequate sanctions in penal or civil law.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 9 December 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 26 January 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution ResChS(2005)2 on 20 April 2005.
No. 19/2003 World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Italy
The complaint, lodged on 1 August 2003, relates to Article 17
(the right of children and young persons to social, legal and
economic protection) of the Revised European Social Charter. It
is alleged that Italian law has not effectively prohibited
corporal punishment of children, nor has it prohibited other
forms of degrading punishment or treatment of children and
provided adequate sanctions in penal or civil law.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 9 December 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 26 January 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution ResChS(2005)1 on 20 April 2005.
No. 18/2003 World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Ireland
The complaint, lodged on 28 July 2003, relates to Article 17
(the right of children and young persons to social, legal and
economic protection) of the Revised European Social Charter. It
is alleged that Irish law has not effectively prohibited
corporal punishment of children, nor has it prohibited other
forms of degrading punishment or treatment of children and
provided adequate sanctions in penal or civil law.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 9 December 2003..
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 26 January 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2005)9 on 8 June 2005.
No. 17/2003 World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 28 July 2003, relates to Article 17
(the right of mothers and children to social and economic
protection) of the European Social Charter. It is alleged that
Greek law has not effectively prohibited corporal punishment of
children, nor has it prohibited other forms of degrading
punishment or treatment of children and provided adequate
sanctions in penal or civil law.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 9 December 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 26 January 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2005)12 on 8 June 2005.
No. 16/2003 Confédération Française de l’Encadrement (CFE CGC)
v. France
The complaint, lodged on 14 May 2003, relates to Articles 2 (the
right to just conditions of work), 4 (the right to a fair
remuneration), 6 (the right to bargain collectively including
the right to strike) and 27 (the right of workers with family
responsibilities to equal opportunities and equal treatment) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that the
provisions relating to the working hours of certain managers
(cadres) contained in Act No 2003-47 of 17 January 2003 violate
these provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 16 June 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 2§1and of
Article 4§2 and transmitted its report containing
its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 30 November 2004.
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution ResChS(2005)7 on 4 May 2005.
No. 15/2003 European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 4 April 2003, relates to Article 16
(the right of the family to social, legal and economic
protection) and the Preamble (non-discrimination) of the
European Social Charter. It is alleged that there is widespread
discrimination both in law and in practice against Roma in the
field of housing.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 16 June 2003. A
public hearing was held on 11 October 2004.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 16 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 7 February 2005.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2005)11 on 8 June 2005.
No. 14/2003 International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH)
v. France
The complaint, lodged on 3 March 2003, relates to Articles 13
(the right to social and medical assistance), 17 (the right of
children and young persons to social, legal and economic
protection) as well as Article E of the Revised European Social
Charter (prohibition of all forms of discrimination in the
application of the rights guaranteed by the treaty). It is
alleged that recent reforms of the «Aide médicale de l’Etat»
(State medical assistance) and to the «Couverture maladie
universelle» (Universal sickness cover) deprive a large number
of adults and children with insufficient resources of the right
to medical assistance.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 16 May 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 17 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 3 November 2004.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2005)6 on 4 May 2005.
No. 13/2002 International Association Autism-Europe (IAAE) v.
France
The complaint, lodged on 27 July 2002, relates to Article 15
(the right of persons with disabilities), Article 17 (the right
of children and young persons to social, legal and economic
protection), and to Article E (non-discrimination) of the
Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged insufficient
educational provision for autistic persons constituting a
violation of the above provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 12 December 2002. A
public hearing was held on 29 September 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 15, 17 and E
and transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of
the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 7 November 2003.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2004)1 on 10 March 2004.
No. 12/2002 Confederation of Swedish Enterprise v. Sweden
The complaint, lodged on 4 April 2002, relates to Article 5 (the
right to organise). It is alleged that the right not to belong
to a trade union is not guaranteed in the manner required under
Article 5.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 19 June 2002. It held
a public hearing on 31 March 2003.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 5 and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 22
May 2003.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2003)1 on 26 September 2003.
No. 11/2001 European Council of Police Trade Unions v. Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 18 July 2001, relates to Articles 5
(the right to organise) and 6 (the right to collective
bargaining) of the European Social Charter . It is alleged that
members of the Polícia de Segurança Pública are not guaranteed
these rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 17 October 2001.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 5 and 6 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 21 May 2002.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2002)5 on 17 July 2002.
No. 10/2000 Tehy ry and STTK ry v. Finland
The complaint, lodged on 23 October 2000, relates to Article 2§4
(the right to additional paid holidays or reduced working hours
for workers engaged in dangerous or unhealthy occupations) of
the European Social Charter. It is alleged that the fact that
hospital personnel who are subjected to the hazards of radiation
during the course of their work are no longer entitled to
special leave due to the exposure to radiation, violates this
provision of the Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 12 February 2001.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 2§4 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 17 October 2001.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2002)2 on 21 February 2002.
No. 9/2000 Confédération Française de l’Encadrement (CFE-CGC)
v. France
The complaint, lodged on 20 June 2000, relates to Articles 2
(the right to just conditions of work), 4 (the right to a fair
remuneration), 6 (the right to bargain collectively including
the right to strike) and 27 (the right of workers with family
responsibilities to equal opportunities and equal treatment) of
the Revised European Social Charter. It is alleged that the
provisions relating to the working hours of managers (cadres)
contained in the second Act on the Reduction of Working Hours (Act
No. 2000-37 of 19 January 2000 – “Loi Aubry n° 2”) violates
these provisions.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 16 November 2001.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 2§1 and of
Article 4§2 and transmitted its report containing
its decision on the
merits of the complaint to the Parties and to
the Committee of Ministers on 11 December 2001.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2002)4 on 26 March 2002.
No. 8/2000 Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 10 March 2000, relates to Article 1§2
(prohibition of forced labour) of the European Social Charter.
It is alleged that the application in practice of the act
authorising alternative forms of military service for
conscientious objectors does not respect the prohibition of
forced labour.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 28 June 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 1§2 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 27 April 2001.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2002)3 on 6 March 2002.
No. 7/2000 International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH)
v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 7 February 2000, relates to Article 1§2
(prohibition of forced labour). It is alleged that a number of
legislative provisions and regulations do not respect the
prohibition of forced labour.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 28 June 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 1§2 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 12 December 2000.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2001)6 on 5 April 2001.
No. 6/1999 Syndicat national des professions du tourisme v.
France
The complaint, lodged on 30 August 1999, relates to Articles 1§2
(prohibition against all forms of discrimination in access to
employment), 10 (the right to vocational training) and E
(non-discrimination) of the Revised European Social Charter. It
is alleged discrimination in access to work and vocational
training for guide-interpreters and national lecturers.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complain admissible on 10 February 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 1§2 and transmitted
its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 10 October 2000.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation
RecChS(2001)1 on 30 January 2001.
No. 5/1999 European Federation of Employees in Public Services (EUROFEDOP)
v. Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 13 August 1999, relates to Articles 5
(the right to organise) and 6 (the right to bargain collectively)
of the European Social Charter. It is alleged that the armed
forces are denied these rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 February 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 5 and 6 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 12 December 2000.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2001)4 on 7 February 2001.
No. 4/1999 European Federation of Employees in Public Services (EUROFEDOP)
v. Italy
The complaint, lodged on 13 August 1999, relates to Articles 5
(the right to organise) and 6 (the right to bargain collectively)
of the European Social Charter and of the Revised European
Social Charter. It is alleged that the armed forces are denied
these rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 February 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 5 and 6 and
transmitted its report containing its
decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 12 December 2000.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2001)3 on 7 February 2001.
No. 3/1999 European Federation of Employees in Public Services (EUROFEDOP)
v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 13 August 1999, relates to Articles 5
(the right to organise) and 6 (the right to bargain collectively)
of the European Social Charter. It is alleged that the armed
forces are denied these rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint inadmissible on 13 October 1999.
No. 2/1999 European Federation of Employees in Public Services (EUROFEDOP)
v. France
The complaint, lodged on 13 August 1999, relates to Articles 5
(the right to organise) and 6 (the right to bargain collectively)
of the European Social Charter and of the Revised European
Social Charter. It is alleged that the armed forces are denied
these rights.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 February 2000.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was no violation of Articles 5 and 6 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on
the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 12 December 2000.
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(2001)2 on 7 February 2001.
No. 1/1998 International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) v. Portugal
The complaint, lodged on 12 October 1998, relates to Article 7§1
(prohibition of child labour under the age of fifteen) of the
European Social Charter. It is alleged that in practice,
the situation in Portugal is not in conformity with this
provision.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 10 March 1999.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 7§1 and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits of the
complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of
Ministers on 09 September 1999.
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Republic of Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
Serbia
Spain
Slovenia
Slovak
Republic 
Sweden
Switzerland
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Print 
Send 
Français 
)