The European Committee of Social Rights held its 261st Session from December 3 to 7, 2012 to consider seventeen collective complaints and examine States’ reports on their implementation of various articles of the European Social Charter.
The European Committee of Social Rights, which typically meets seven times annually, is tasked with monitoring State compliance with the European Social Charter. Adopted in 1961 and revised in 1996, the European Social Charter is meant to complement the European Convention on Human Rights. While the European Convention guarantees civil and political rights, the Charter focuses on social and economic rights. Among the entitlements enshrined in the Charter are the rights to housing, health, education, employment, legal and social protection, freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination. States party to the European Social Charter are only required to accept sixteen articles (or sixty-three sub-articles) of the Charter and, although they are must choose six from the nine fundamental provisions (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20), States may otherwise indicate which provisions by which they agree to be bound. State ratifications are depicted by article number in this chart.
The Committee is composed of fifteen independent, impartial experts that are elected by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for six-year terms. Committee members are eligible for reelection once. The Committee fulfills its mandate by examining complaints through its collective complaints procedure and reviewing reports issued by State Parties. The 1995 Additional Protocol, which came into force in 1998 and has been ratified by twelve Member States, established the collective complaints procedure. Article 1 permits the following organizations to submit complaints alleging violations of the Charter against State Parties:
- International organizations of employers and trade unions referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Charter
- Other international NGOs which have consultative status with the Council of Europe and have been put on a list established for this purpose by the Governmental Committee
- Representative national organization of employers and trade unions within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party against which they have lodged a complaint
In accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol, a Contracting State may also “declare that it recognizes the right of any other representative national NGO within its jurisdiction which has particular competence in the matter governed by the Charter, to lodge complaints against it.”
Consideration of Collective Complaints during the 261st Session
During its 261st Session, the Committee considered complaints on a range of issues: labor rights and social security, social support for groups including the elderly and the homeless, institutional care and vocational training for persons with disabilities, the right to health in the context of environmental pollution, and access to abortion. Article 35 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Committee’s decisions on the merits of complaints are published upon “adoption of a resolution by the Committee of Ministers in conformity with Article 9 of the Protocol or at the latest four months after the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers.” Accordingly, the Committee’s decisions on the merits of complaints examined during the most recent session have yet to be made public. However, the Committee’s list of complaints includes links to the parties’ submissions and the Committee’s admissibility decision regarding each complaint.
A number of complaints were brought against Greece, asserting that recent legislation passed by Greece reducing pensions of, mostly, public sector employees violated Articles 31(1) (restrictions) and 12(3) (right to social security) of the Charter. See Federation of employed pensioners of Greece (IKA-ETAM) v. Greece, Complaint No. 76/2012; Panhellenic Federation of Public Service Pensioners v. Greece, Complaint No. 77/2012; Pensioners’ Union of the Athens-Piraeus Electric Railways (I.S.A.P.) v. Greece, Complaint No. 78/2012; Panhellenic Federation of pensioners of the public electricity corporation (POS-DEI) v. Greece, Complaint No. 79/2012; Pensioner’s Union of the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) v. Greece, Complaint No. 80/2012. According to the complaints, the Acts in question were implemented “after mere discussion and information” rather than a vote by Parliament and thus violate Article 31(1) which provides that the rights and principles provided for in the Charter shall not be subject to any restrictions and limitations “except such as are prescribed by law.” Complainants argued that the reductions, which were instituted as part of Greece’s economic recovery program, when added up have the effect of forcing most pensioners “to live below the poverty line.” According to the complainants, there were a range of alternative measures available to the Greek government, demonstrating that “such huge cuts to pensions was neither necessary nor inevitable” and that in focusing solely on reducing pensions, the Greek government “failed to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.”
Another complaint brought against Greece concerned environmental contamination. In International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. Greece, Complaint No. 72/2011, FIDH argued that the Greek authorities “failed to organize the Oinofyta industrial area [in the Asopos river valley], establish environmental standards or regulate the discharge of liquid waste.” Consequently, pollution stemming from industry in the area has made the water and food in Oinofyta unfit for human consumption and use. FIDH also cited a study carried out by the Oinofyta Health Monitor that found that the cancer mortality rate in Oinofyta was significantly higher than the cancer mortality rate in the rest of the region. Citing the Committee’s decision in Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) v. Greece, Complaint No. 30/2005 which found that “there may be a breach of the obligation to prevent damage arising from…pollution for as long as the pollution continues and the breach may even be progressively compounded if sufficient measures are not taken to put an end to it,” FIDH asserted that the government’s failure to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste in Oinofyta for a period of over forty years violated the right to health, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.
International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network (IPPF EN) v. Italy, Complaint No. 87/2012, the complainant organization alleged that practical limitations on women’s access to abortion constituted a violation of the right to health read alone or in conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination). The complaint concerned Article 9 of Law No. 194 of 1978 which permits objecting medical personnel to refrain from participating in the voluntary termination of pregnancies provided the woman’s life or health is not in danger. The complainant argued that the text of Article 9 did not “sufficiently determine the practical arrangements through which hospitals are to ensure the presence of non-objecting medical staff, nor the means by which the Regions should monitor these activities and or how the Regions may recourse to the mobility of staff.” According to the complainant, this gap in the legislation, coupled with the increasing number of objecting medical personnel, has greatly restricted women’s access to abortion, negatively impacting their physical and mental health. Further, this has allegedly forced women to move from one institution to the next, sometimes having to go abroad to obtain treatment, amounting to territorial and economic discrimination as well as discrimination between “women seeking access to termination procedures and women not seeking access, whether they are pregnant or not.”
Article E claims were also raised in a number of other complaints, including European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. The Netherlands, Complaint No. 86/2012 and International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) v. Belgium, Complaint No. 75/2011. Both complaints alleged that legislation and government policies did not adequately provide for the needs of vulnerable individuals, thus violating their rights under the Charter. In International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) v. Belgium, FIDH, supported by seventeen other organizations, alleged that Belgium had “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 of the Revised Charter.” FIDH based its claim on three grounds: “the failure to offer a sufficient number and variety of care solutions which would enable highly dependent disabled adults to exercise their freedom of choice and not be obliged to live in a particular setting;” “the obstacles to inclusion on a waiting list for access to an appropriate care solution;” and the “failure on the part of the Belgian authorities as a whole to put in place an overall coordinated policy to combat the poverty and social exclusion which affect particular highly dependent disabled adults and their families.”
This complaint is potentially groundbreaking in that, according to FIDH, “none of the seventy-four collective complaints submitted to the Committee between 1998 and December 2011 has led to a finding of a violation of Articles 13.3, 14 and 15.3 of the Charter.” In support of its complaint, FIDH cited past conclusions adopted by the Committee in which it found that Belgium’s failure to provide information on the resources available to persons with disabilities meant that Belgium was not in compliance with its Charter obligations.
Meanwhile, in European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. The Netherlands, Complaint No. 86/2012, FEANTSA alleged that Dutch legislation, policies, and practices relating to homeless shelters was not compatible with Articles 13, 16, 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), and 31 (right to housing) taken alone or in conjunction with Article E. Specifically, FEANTSA focused on three issues. First, FEANTSA raised the issue that “access to (emergency) shelter is made conditional to a local connection criterion or other criteria, impacting on the rights of homeless persons and (un)lawfully residing migrant(s) (workers).” For marginalized groups such as homeless individuals, migrants, and Roma, the requirement to show a local connection to the particular municipality in which the shelter is located can be difficult to meet, thus barring access to the shelter. According to FEANTSA, need should serve as the only criteria for determining access to such shelters. Second, “the availability and quality of (emergency) shelters is inadequate, negatively impacting women, children and young persons.” Finally, a lack of intermediary shelters and affordable housing, resulting from a “lack of coordination between forty-three responsible municipalities” makes it difficult for persons who are homeless to “reach a stage of independent housing, starting from a first admission to an emergency shelter.”
Examination of State Reports
During its sessions, the Committee also considers National Reports and emits Conclusions regarding States’ implementation of their Charter commitments. Pursuant to the Charter, Parties are required to present reports to the Committee on one of four thematic areas each year. During the 261st Session, the Committee examined Articles 1 (right to work), 9 (right to vocational guidance), 10 (right to vocational training), 18 (right to engage in gainful occupation in the territory of other State Parties), and 20 (right to equal opportunities and treatment in employment and occupation without sex discrimination). After considering the reports, the Committee adopts conclusions regarding each State report. Following adoption, conclusions are transmitted to the relevant State and made public. Every five years, States are also required to report on provisions of the Charter they have yet to accept.
For a full list of complaints considered during the 261st Session as well as links to the text of those complaints see: Collective Complaints List; see also the IJRC’s page on the European Human Rights System for more information on the European Committee of Social Rights.