The complaint was registered on 13 December 2012. The complainant association alleges that Finland has not maintained the social security at a satisfactory level and has not endeavored to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level, in violation of Article 12 (the right to social security) of the European Social Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered on 13 December 2012 |
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on
14 mai 2013. |
No. 87/2012 International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) v. Italy |
The complaint was registered on
9 August 2012. The complainant organisation alleges
that the formulation of Article 9 of Law No. 194 of
1978, which governs the conscientious objection of
medical practitioners in relation to the termination
of pregnancy, is in violation of Article 11 (the
right to health) of the European Social Charter,
read alone or in conjunction with the
non-discrimination clause in Article E, in that it
does not does not protect the right to access
termination of pregnancy procedures.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 9 August 2012
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Submissions of the Government on the admissibility
(French only)
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
(French only)
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response from IPPF EN to the Government's
submissions on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations from ECLJ |
|
Case Document no. 6,
Appendix to the Observations from ECLJ (1/2) |
|
Case Document no. 7,
Appendix to the Observations from ECLJ (2/2) |
|
Case Document no. 8,
Response to the list of questions addressed to IPPF
EN |
|
Case Document no. 9,
Response from the Government to the list of questions addressed to IPPF
EN |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 22 octobre 2012. |
No. 86/2012 European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v The Netherlands |
|
The complaint was registered on
4 July 2012.
The complainant organisation alleges that The Netherlands' legislation, policy and practice regarding sheltering the homeless
is not in compatible with is not compatible with Articles 13 (right to social and medical assistance), 16 (right of the family to social, legal and economic protection),
17 (right of children and young persons 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), 31 (right to housing), taken alone or in conjunction with Article E of the European Social Charter.
|
No. 85/2012 Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO)
and Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees
(TCO) v. Sweden |
|
The complaint was registered on 27 June 2012. The complainant trade unions allege that following the ECJ judgment
in the Laval case (C-341/05), subsequent amendments to Swedish legislation have restricted the rights to freedom
of association and collective bargaining, in violation of Articles 4 (the right to a fair remuneration),
6 (the right to bargain collectively) and 19,4 (Equality regarding employment, right to organize and accommodation)
of the European Social Charter (Revised).
|
No. 84/2012 Union syndicale des magistrats administratifs
(USMA) v. France
|
|
The complaint was registered on 13 June 2012. The
complainant organisation alleges that the
compensation rate for accumulated unused vacation
days on time-saving accounts of administrative
judges fails to take into account the right to
increased remuneration of overtime work, in
violation of Article 4§2 (the right to
increased rate of remuneration for overtime work) of
the European Social Charter (Revised).
|
No. 83/2012 European Confederation of Police
(EUROCOP) v. Ireland |
|
The complaint was registered on 7 June 2012.
The complainant organisation alleges that police
representative associations in Ireland, and more
specifically, the Association of Garda Sergeants and
Inspectors (AGSI), do not enjoy full trade unions
rights, which include, in particular, the right to
join an umbrella organisation and the right to
bargain collectively. The complainant organisation
alleges a violation of Articles 5 (the right to
organise), 6 (the right to bargain collectively),
and 21 (the right to information and consultation)
of the European Social Charter (Revised).
|
No. 82/2012 Comité européen d'action
spécialisée pour l'Enfant et la Famille dans leur
milieu de vie (EUROCEF) v.
France |
|
The complaint was registered on 4 April 2012. It concerns the suspension of family allowances in cases of truancy, in application of the laws of 28 September 2010 and 24 March 2011. The complainant organisation alleges that France does not comply with its obligations under Articles 16 (right to appropriate social, legal and economic protection for the family) and 30 (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion), taken alone or in combination with Article E (non discrimination) of the European Social Charter (Revised).
|
No. 81/2012 Action européenne des
handicapés (AEH) v. France |
The complaint was registered on 3 April 2012. It concerns the problems regarding access of autistic children and adolescents to education and access of young adults with autism to vocational training. The complainant organisation alleges that France does not comply with its obligations under Articles 10 (right to vocational training), 15 (right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community), taken alone or in combination with Article E (non discrimination) of the European Social Charter (Revised).
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 3 April 2012
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations of the Government on the admissibility
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits (French only) |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response by AEH to the submissions of the Government on the merits (French only) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on
12 September 2012. |
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 (Restrictions) of the 1961 Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 2 January 2012
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations of the Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 May 2012. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 12§3 of the
1961 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 December 2012. |
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 (Restrictions) of the 1961
Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 2 January 2012
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations of the Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 May 2012. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 12§3 of the
1961 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 December 2012. |
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
(Restrictions) of the 1961 Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 2 January 2012
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations of the Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23
May 2012. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 12§3 of the
1961 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 December 2012. |
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
(Restrictions) of the 1961 Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 2 January 2012
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations of the Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 May 2012. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 12§3 of the
1961 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 December 2012. |
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
(Restrictions) of the 1961 Charter.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 2 January 2012 |
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations of the Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
|
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23 May 2012. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 12§3 of the
1961 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 December 2012. |
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).
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 13 December 2011
|
|
Case Document no. 2,
Submissions on the merits (French only) |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations by Centre
de l'Egalité des Chances pour la lutte contre le racisme (French only) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 22 March 2012. |
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 and 2 (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.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on
27 September 2011 |
Norwegian version |
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations by the
Government on the admissibility |
|
Case Document no.3,
Response to the Government's observations on the
admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Further response by the Government on the
admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 5,
Further response by FFFS on the
admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 6,
Submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 7,
Response of FFFS to the submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 8,
Additional observations of the Government on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 9,
Further additional observations of the Government on
the merits, |
|
Case Document no. 10,
Further response by FFS on additional observations
of the Government |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 23
May 2012. |
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.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on
19 July 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
Case document no. 3, Response to the Government's submissions on the merits
(French only) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights unanimously
concluded that Articles 2§6, 20 and E are not
applicable and that there is no violation of
Articles 12 and 1§2 of the Revised Charter and and
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 12 September 2012. |
|
CM Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted
Resolution Res ChS (2012) 6 on 28 November
2012. |
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.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 8 July 2011
|
|
Case Document no. 2, Observations by the
Government on the admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations of FIDH in reply to the Committee's
questions (French only) |
|
Case Document no. 4, Further submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011. |
No. 71/2011The Central Association of Carers in Finland
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). In October 2011, the complainant organisation
previously called “Association of Care Giving Relatives and Friends”
took the decision to change its name to “The Central Association of Carers in Finland”.
|
Case Document no.1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 6 July 2011
|
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations by the Government on the admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions by the Government on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 5, Replies
from the Association to additional questions |
|
Case Document no 6,
Replies from the Government to additional questions
|
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7
December 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded that there is a violation of
Article 23 of the Charter, that there are no
separate issues arise under Article 14 § 1 of the
Charter and that Articles 13 and 16 of the Charter
are not applicable in the instant case. It transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 20 December 2012. |
No. 70/2011 The Central Association of Carers in Finland
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). In October 2011, the complainant organisation
previously called “Association of Care Giving Relatives and Friends” took the decision to change its name to “The Central Association of Carers in Finland”.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 6 July 2011 |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations by the Government on the admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Submissions by the Government on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Response to the Government's submissions on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Replies to the Association to additional questions |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7 December 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded that there is a violation of Article 23 of the Charter
and it transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 20 December 2012. |
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).
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 21 June 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2, Observations by the
Government on the admissibility (French only) |
|
Case document no. 3, Submissions of the Government on the merits (French only) |
|
Case document no.
4, Response from DEI to the submissions of the
Government on the merits (French only) |
|
Case document no.5. Observations by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
|
|
Case document no.
6, Observations by
PICUM
(Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 7
December 2011. |
|
|
The Committee concluded that there was a
violation of Article 17, of Article 7§10,
and of Article 11 §§1 and 3 of the Revised Charter.
It concluded that that Article 30 and Article E of
the Charter does not apply in the instant case. It
transmitted its report containing its decision on the merits
of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee
of Ministers on 20 November 2012. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 18 May 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Submissions by the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 3,
Response from CESP to the submissions of the Government on
the merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 13 September 2011. |
|
|
The Committee unanimously 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 5 November 2012. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 19 April 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2, Submissions by the Government on the merits
|
|
Case document no. 3,
Response to the submissions of the Government on
the merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 13
September 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded that there was a
violation of Article E read
in conjunction with Articles 11§§1-3, 13§1, 16, 17§2, 19§8, 30 and 31§§1-2 of the Revised Charter
and of Article 13§4. In regard to other situations, the Committee concluded that there was
no violation of
Article E, read in conjunction with Article 16 and of Article 13§4. It transmitted its report containing
its decision on the merits of the complaint to the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2012. |
CM
Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
CM/ResChS(2013)6
on 27 March 2013. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 21 February 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations by the Government on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Response to the observations of the Government on
admissibility |
|
Case document no. 4,
Additional written statements in support of the
complaint |
|
Case document no. 5,
Submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Response to the submissions of the Government on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional submissions of the Government on the
merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 30 June 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Articles 7§7, 10§2, 12§3 and 4§1 of the 1961 Charter, and no violation of Articles 1§1 and 7§§ 2 and 9 of the 1961 Charter, and transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 18
June 2012. |
CM
Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)3
on 5
February 2013. |
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).
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 21 February 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations of the Government on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Response to the Observations of the Government on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 4,
Additional written statements in support of the
complaint |
|
Case document no. 5,
Submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Response to the submissions of the Government on the
merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 30 June 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 4§4 of
the 1961 Charter and that Article 3§1a of the 1988
Additional Protocol to the 1961 Charter is not
applicable, and transmitted its report
containing its decision on the merits of the complaint to
the Parties and to the Committee of Ministers on 18
June 2012. |
CM
Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)2
on 5
February 2013. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 28 January 2011 |
|
Case document no. 2, Submissions by the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 3, Response from ERTF to the written submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 11 May 2011. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article E in conjunction
with Articles 19§8, 30, 31§§1, 2, and 3, and
Article 16 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
February 2012. |
|
CM Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)1
on 5 February 2013. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 15 November 2010 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Written submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 3,
Response by COHRE to the written submissions of the
Government on the merits |
|
|
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. It 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).
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 30 September 2010 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Written submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 3, Response to the
written submissions of the Government on the merits
(French only) |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 1 December
2010. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article E read in conjunction with Article 16 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 21 March 2012. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 23 April 2010 |
|
Case document no. 2, Observations of the Government
on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3, Written submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 4,
Response by ERRC to the written submissions of the
Government on the merits |
|
|
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. |
CM
Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)7
on 10 April 2013. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 18 March 2010
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Written submissions by the Government on the merits
|
|
Case document no. 3,
Response by CESP to the Government's submissions on
the merits |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the
complaint admissible on 22 June
2010. |
|
|
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded
that there was a violation of Article 4§2 and
that there was no violation of Article 6§§1
and 2 and Article 22 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 17
October 2011. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 22 June 2009 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations of the Government on admissibility
(French only) |
|
Case document no. 3,
Written submissions of the Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations of the Organisation internationale
des employeurs (OIE)
|
|
Case document no. 5,
Observations from Finland |
|
Case document no. 6, Response from ETUC, CGSLB, CSC and FGTB to the
written submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
|
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. |
|
CM Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2012)3
on 4 April 2012. |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 29 May 2009 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations of the gouvernment on admissibility
(French only) |
|
Case document no. 3,
Written submissions of the Government on the merits
|
|
Case document no. 4,
Response from COHRE to the written submissions of
the Government on the merits |
|
|
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. |
CM
Website |
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.
|
Case document no. 1, Complaint registered at the
Secretariat on 7 May 2009 |
|
Case document no. 2,
Submissions by the Government on the merits and
responses to the Committee's questions |
|
Case document no. 3,
Reply from CESP to the Government's submissions on
the merits
(French only) |
|
|
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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 a violation 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. |
|
CM
Website |
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. |
|
CM
Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM
Website |
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. |
|
CM
Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM website |
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. |
|
CM website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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.
|
|
CM Website |
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.
|
|
CM Website |
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. |
|
CM Website |
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.
|
|
CM Website |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution Res
ChS (2012)4 on 10 October 2012. |
|
|
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.
|
|
CM Website |
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 4 April
2005
|
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the Greek Government on the
admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 3,
Response from the MFHR to the observations by the
Greek Government on the admissibility
|
|
Case Document no. 4,
Written submissions from the Greek Government on the
merits
|
|
Case Document no. 5,
Response from MFHR to the Greek Governments
observations on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 6,
Response from the Greek Government to the further
observations of MFHR on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 7,
Further response from MFHR to the Greek Government's
further response on the merits
|
|
Case Document no. 8,
Final response from the Greek Government on the
merits
|
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 7
February 2005.
(French only) |
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 12 July
2004 |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the French Government on the
admissiblity |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations from the National Union of Dermato-Venereologists
(SNDV) on the admissibility
|
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 28 June
2009 |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the Italian Government on the
admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations from the European Roma Rights Centre on
the admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations from the Italian Government on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 6,
Response by ERRC to the observations from the
Italian Government on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 7,
Responde by the Italian Government to the
observations of European Roman Rights Centre
(French only) |
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 27 April 2004 |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the French Government on the
admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3
Additional information from the Syndicats des
Agrégés de l'Enseignement Supérieur (SAGES) on
admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Written submissions by the French Government on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Response by SAGES to the written submissions by the
French Government on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1,
Complaint registered at the Secretariat on 6
February 2004 |
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the French Government on the
admissibility |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Lettre from Syndicat SUD Travail Affaires
Sociales, including information on statute and
mandate (French only) |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations of the French Government on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 6,
Response by Syndicat SUD Travail Affaires
Sociales to the observations from the
French Government on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 7,
Supplementary observations by the French Government |
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on
18 November 2003
|
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the French Government on the
admissibility
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations from the Belgian Government on the
merits (French only) |
|
Case Document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation on the merits |
|
Case Document no. 5,
Observations from the French Government on the
merits |
|
Case Document no. 6,
Additional information from the Syndicat occitan
de l'éducation on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case Document no. 1, Complaint registered at the Secretariat on
24 October 2003
|
|
Case Document no. 2,
Observations from the French Government on the
admissibility
(French only) |
|
Case Document no. 3,
Observations from the French Government on the
merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 23
September 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Belgian Government on
admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Observation from the Belgian Government on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Supplementary observations from the Belgian
Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 8,
Additional information from the World Organisation (OMCT)
against Torture on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 31 July 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Portuguese Government on
admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the Portuguese Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Additional information from the Portuguese
Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional observations from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 1 August 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Italian Government on
admissibility (French only) |
|
Case document no. 3,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the Italian Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Additional information from the Italian
Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional observations from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 28 July 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Irish Government on
admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Organisation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Observations from the Irish Government on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional observations from the Irish Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 8,
OMCT's comments on Ireland's additional observations
on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 28 July 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Greek Government on
admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Organisation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Observations from the Greek Government on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Additional information from the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional observations from the Greek Government on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
Complaint registered by the Secretariat on 4 April 2003
|
|
Case document no. 2,
Observations from the Greek Government on
the admissibility |
|
Case document no. 3,
Observations from the European Trade Union
Confederation (ETUC) on the merits |
|
Case document no. 4,
Observations from the Greek Government on the merits |
|
Case document no. 5,
Response from European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) to
the observations from the Greek Government on the
merits |
|
Case document no. 6,
Request for costs from the complainant organisation |
|
Case document no. 7,
Additional information from the ERRC on the merits |
|
Case document no. 8,
Additional information from the ERRC on the merits |
|
Case document no. 9,
Additional information from the ERRC on the merits |
|
Case document no. 10,
Documents submitted during the course of the hearing |
|
Case document no. 11,
Additional information from the ERRC on the merits |
|
Case document no. 12,
Observations from the Greek Government on the merits |
|
|
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.
|
|
CM Website |
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.
|
site
CM |
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. |
site
CM |
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint no. 9/1999 |
|
|
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.
|
site
CM |
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint no. 8/1999 |
|
|
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. |
site
CM |
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint no. 7/1999 |
|
|
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.
|
site
CM |
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint no. 6/1999 |
|
|
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. |
site
CM |
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.
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint 5/1999 (To facilitate navigation within this file click
on the bookmark icone
 ) |
|
|
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.
|
site
CM |
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint 4/1999 (To facilitate navigation within this file click
on the bookmark icone
) |
|
|
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.
|
site
CM |
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.
|
Case document no. 1,
registered on 13 August 1999 |
|
|
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.
|
Compilation of case documents with regard to
Complaint 2/1999 (To facilitate navigation within this file click
on the bookmark icone
) |
|
|
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.
|
site
CM |
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.
|
site
CM |
The Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
ResChS(99)4 on 15 December 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
