Our Group

Our group has been founded on 9/12/2010 in the framework of the VIII Congress of IACL, on the common initiative of Victor Bazan, Sandra Liebenberg and George Katrougalos.
Its main aim is to develop a network and a forum for constitutionalists interested in social rights from countries throughout the world. Among its activities will be, inter alia, the development of comparative research projects on topics to be decided collectively, advocacy and public Interest litigation on social rights issues and further involvement to related activities of IACL.

Saturday, May 16, 2020

Social Rights & Covid-19 Symposium: European Social Policy in the Covid-19 Crisis


Silvana Sciarra, Italian Constitutional Court & University of Florence

The main argument I wish to offer to wider discussions on the legal dimensions of the responses to the Covid-19 pandemic is centered on the effects of the emergency measures adopted in the wake of the crisis, which inevitably developed into economic and social disruptions. The methodology policymakers ought to adopt should be long-sighted, while dealing with temporary solutions. The possible directions for these policies will no doubt need to be framed within the existing legal and political constraints while also being mindful of the need to respect and fulfill the principles set out in the European Social Pillar, which includes equal opportunities and access to the labour markets, the adoption of fair working conditions, and social protection and inclusion. All of these essential components will be implicated in future action at the European level, and it is therefore imperative that a systematic view of legal systems, both national and supranational, should prevail. Hence it would be problematic to transform emergency measures into permanent ones. Legal systems should continue to breathe the air of shared fundamental values which are meant to facilitate further evolving steps, in less trying times.

Opening of Political Space for a Renewed Dialogue

At the launch of her mandate as President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen put forward promising plans to reconcile ‘the social and the market’ and implement the European Pillar of Social Rights. One of the promises she then kept was to start the consultation of the social partners for a European measure on minimum wages. This was a remarkable step, because it revived social dialogue (art. 154 of the Treaty on the Functions of the European Union - TFEU) on a very sensitive theme. Low wages throughout the EU had frequently been recalled as one of the contentious inheritances of the global economic and financial crisis in the aftermath of which several European supra-national institutions played a vital, yet contentious role.  The European Commission’s Recommendations during the European Semester often concentrated on this and related issues, recalling states’ responsibility in establishing fair working conditions, as well as in enhancing growth. Fair wages were also central in rulings delivered by several Constitutional Courts, arguing on the compatibility of austerity measures with fundamental rights and establishing criteria of proportionality and reasonableness. Comparable wages for work of equal value were also crucial in reforming European secondary legislation on posted workers. Some of them continue to cross borders during the pandemic because they provide essential services in the health sector and have been granted special permissions to circulate.
Despite the scepticism of Business Europe and the reluctance of Nordic unions to enter the field of wage policies, the floor has been opened for a discussion. This discussion,  will prove to be highly stimulating in strict legal terms, considering that wages are excluded from EU legislative competences (art. 153.5 TFEU) and yet included in soft-law recommendations. Furthermore, the Social Pillar refers to this principle, recalling most relevant international sources. A closer coherence with international standards is of extreme relevance when discussing ‘adequate’ wages and framing them in an interconnected economic context.
The public health dimension of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has been the most urgent priority for policy-makers, continues to remain pressing. However, wages should be kept at the core of future social policies and run parallel to other measures of economic support for people who were compelled to stay at home with no income. The fear that there will be unemployment caused by the pandemic should not distract policymakers from terminating the consultation on minimum wages. To the negative imaginary of an austere Europe which was complicit in rolling back citizens’ rights during the economic crisis, no other destructive symbols should be added. A sign of attention to dignity could be connected to fair wage policies, especially during the incoming German presidency of the EU. In Germany, legislation on minimum wages was enacted in 2014, in line with recommendations coming from European institutions. The results of this reform are promising.

Establishing the Net and Funding Recovery: Possible Options

The President of the Commission had also put an emphasis on the ‘European Unemployment Reinsurance Scheme’, a project sponsored by her predecessor and widely discussed in academic circles. Even in this case, the emergency caused by Covid-19 imposed a sudden change of manoeuvre. Hence, on April 2, 2020, the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of a measure for ‘temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency’ (SURE) was presented. This instrument should be made available to Member States on a temporary basis, unlike the EU Solidarity Fund, which should now be extended to cover major public health emergencies. The lending scheme underlying both instruments is ‘underpinned by a system of guarantees from Member States’. The idea is to provide financial assistance on short notice and to implement work schemes for both employees and self-employed persons at risk of unemployment. The legal basis is in art. 122 (1) and (2) of the TFEU. Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should guide recourse to this Fund, accessible under precise circumstances, whenever a relevant increase in public spending is required to counteract unemployment caused by the Covid-19 outbreak.
The technicalities connected to the functioning of this new proposed instrument arise due to its need to be compatible with the multiannual financial framework. It should be appreciated as the necessary means in complying with transparent management of the funding required. SURE is intended to complement national initiatives in support of the unemployed and must be requested by the Member State in need of sustenance. This, in turn, has the capacity to induce synergies and good practices. Therefore, the initiative taken by each single state should be at the centre of public debates. However, it is also imperative that the EU’s support is made visible while also showcasing the anticipated benefits of these combined measures at the national and supranational levels.  Good communication is also part of renewed trust in the EU. 
However, in an overall strategy of budgetary reforms that should keep EU institutions occupied in the very near future, long-sighted proposals must be presented. Social policies – with few exceptions – have typically lacked the support of specific EU budget lines. The Youth Guarantee scheme is temporary and should be turned into a permanent measure, to combat youth unemployment.  On April 17, 2020 the European Parliament voted in support of the proposal to use uncommitted money from the cohesion policy funds, lifting the burden of co-financing. This too is a path to follow and to explore even further for all available structural funds.

Pathways to New Solidarities

The Covid-19 outbreak is causing the positive effect of opening up new solidarities in a broad and generalised manner. Social policies are grounded in social dialogue, which is inherent in European traditions and mentioned in art. 152 of the TFEU. All this must not be forgotten, both in discussions taking place at EU level and in initiatives at national level.
In Italy, on March 14, 2020 a Protocol was signed by the government, employers and unions to enforce guidelines on health and safety at work. Issues related to the public interest acquire stronger credibility once they are the outcome of negotiations. Legislation later adopted refers to the Protocol and incorporates it in binding rules. Other agreements at a decentralised level have been signed, introducing detailed measures for companies, which are allowed to restart production. Furthermore, the legislature indicated that companies receiving economic support should guarantee employment stability and negotiate this with the unions.
It is not a minor point that negotiated solutions are encouraged and that the social partners become protagonists of the reconstruction. We need to listen to voices closely connected to the needs of all that are suffering and feel deprived of their rights. Employers’ associations and labour unions are now asked to measure their powers as representatives of very diffused interests. In responding to the Covid-19 emergency, we must avoid indifference and uncritical acquiescence.

Silvana Sciarra is Judge, Italian Constitutional Court and Emeritus Professor of Labour Law and European Social Policies, University of Florence.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Social Rights & Covid-19: Symposium Introduction (IACL Research Group on Social Rights)






The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into sharp focus the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. It has also highlighted the woeful inadequacy of ways in which social safety nets around the world have been devised and are delivered. The public health crisis has exposed not only the dangers of underinvestment in areas like healthcare and welfare provision but also the disparate impacts this has had across sections of the world’s population.
2020 saw us set out to reinvigorate the Social Rights Research Group (RGSR) as a forum for enabling conversation between researchers and practitioners. The pandemic has provided further evidence that access to effective social rights is a key vector in determining health and economic outcomes. It is clear that in the months to come, political and legal contestations over social rights will intensify. The RGSR hopes to be able to facilitate a wide-ranging dialogue and help connect researchers and practitioners from across jurisdictions. We want to enable the asking of difficult questions about social rights theory and practice - and the formulation of responses to them. This online symposium, co-hosted by the RGSR and the IACL, is meant to accompany the relaunch of the Research Group and brings together leading social rights scholars, many of whom also have experience in advocacy and judicial roles.
Substantively, the RGSR will ask new questions about the relationship between social rights and the broader political and social setting in which they operate. In an age of deepening inequality, what role should government obligations play in creating a safety net to provide the conditions necessary for human flourishing? How should these obligations be judicially managed and adjudicated? In the wake of the pandemic, should courts or the elected branches be the focus of engagement for civil society coalitions aiming to demand better and more equitable access to social services? These are some of the queries which the RGSR will be pursuing, and engagement with these questions is set out in the four strands I outline below. The contributions in the online symposium concern itself with some elements from each of these strands.

The Political Economy of Social Rights Claim-making

The RGSR will first theorize the variance in social rights formulation and practice depending on the social and political conditions under which they operate. We also wish to focus on the constraints under which claim-making on their basis operates. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how health crises and their attendant social and economic repercussions reinforce and harden existing patterns of vulnerabilities and inequalities. This brings into focus not only the recent debates about the role of social rights in combating inequality, but also their compatibility with some developments seen in parts of the Global South. It may be true that SR have historically been conceptualised with a vision of sufficiency and minimal standards which sit uncomfortably with the growing divide between the rich and the poor. However, it is also true that institutional actors like courts, as well as social movements, have been able to subsume their halting interventions (with varying degrees of success) within the powerful idiom of rights.
As members of the legal profession and academy, some of us are intuitively drawn to court essentialism. Yet, it is unclear where the focus of reconstructing social rights should, or will, lie in a post-pandemic world. The RGSR will therefore situate its discussions of social rights within the broader political economy in which these rights are claimed. It will also pay careful attention to how political actors and civil society articulate their demands that are based in social rights. Take for example the response of the EU to the global financial crisis, where institutions have in the past been associated with attaching conditions like the scaling back of social services to accompany financial assistance in some countries. There appears to be some pushback against a repeat of this. The growing support for lack of conditionality attached to the ESM Pandemic Crisis Support (insofar as it relates to healthcare measures) is an encouraging first step. Yet, it remains to be seen whether future financial measures will respect the 2016 recommendations of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), especially in relation to the conduct of human rights impact assessments of financial assistance conditionality requirements.
In this vein, Silvana Sciarra (Constitutional Court of Italy; University of Florence) examines the political discursive spaces which have opened up following the pandemic. She considers specifically the provision of temporary financial assistance to states to mitigate unemployment risks in emergencies. She remains hopeful that the President of the European Commission will deliver on her promising plan to reconcile ‘the social and the market,’ and implement the European Pillar of Social Rights. Her post highlights the enduring power and relevance of legal social rights in shaping political discourse.

The Digital Welfare State

Second, the RGSR will consider how the adoption of new technologies is ushering in the ‘digital welfare state’. This usually has adverse impacts on the formulation, realization, and dispute resolution mechanisms for social rights delivery. Some jurisdictions are confronted with the false binary of privacy and efficient welfare delivery. Others have been forced to confront increasing algorithmization and the use of artificial intelligence tools to automate decision-making processes. The proliferating use of private actors in the detection of welfare fraud poses serious risks due to opaque standards of accountability, a lack of sufficient privacy measures, and the likelihood of discrimination and stigmatization. It is imperative that these technologies incorporate crucial human rights principles like transparency, non-discrimination, accountability, and respect for human dignity, as recommended in the CESCR General Comment No. 25 (2020).
Ingrid Leijten (Leiden University), in her post on the SyRI case from the Hague District Court, brings to the fore the systemic risks posed by the development of a surveillance network in certain low-income identified neighborhoods in the Netherland. This practice did not just interference with not just the privacy rights of potential welfare beneficiaries, but also contributed to stigmatization and had an adverse effect on welfare delivery outcomes. The social, legal, and political deliberations over the future of social welfare will undoubtedly need to account for the growing use of technology. The outcome in the SyRI case provides a preliminary template on how human rights principles can undergird these deliberations.

Connecting Domestic and Supra-national Adjudication

Third, the RGSR will consider questions relating to the relationship between domestic constitutional and supranational adjudicatory responses to changes in social entitlements. After the global financial crisis, some domestic courts in Europe were able to, with divergent degrees of effectiveness, draw on principles like non-retrogression to push back against some of the conditionality requirements attached to financial assistance. The RGSR will, therefore, engage with questions about the legality and legitimacy of the social and economic effects of supranational body responses to the pandemic. In particular, we will examine how to develop technical and analytical tools for budget analysis, as well as how to best develop manageable standards for indeterminate terms like ‘progressive realization’ and ‘maximum available resources’.
Aoife Nolan (University of Nottingham) in her post reflects on the role of constitutional social rights litigation (and adjudication) in the coronavirus era. She focuses on how different legal frameworks have been - and might be - deployed to respond to the short- and longer-term social rights challenges posed in the context of COVID-19. In addition to looking at national judicial responses so far, she considers potential points of convergence and divergence between international and domestic adjudicative approaches to social rights during the time of COVID-19.

Colm O’ Cinneide (University College, London), in a two-part post, discusses first, the political and legal marginalization of social and economic rights. In the second part of his post, Colm reflects on their reactivation in both the legal and political spheres. He also enumerates the challenges involved in interpreting social rights and determining when states are in breach of their obligations. In doing so, he discusses wider issues relating to the question of how to put flesh on the bones of abstract social rights provisions.

Meaningful Cross-jurisdictional Comparisons

Fourth, the RGSR will draw lessons from the judicial treatment of SR across a variety of jurisdictions, assessing the implications for comparative constitutional theory. By way of illustration, consider the example of the effects of decentralization on social policy. While it would be unwise to make general claims about the impact of decentralization across social and political contexts, we do know that in many places it has led to difficulties. Some of the challenges faced in these contexts include problems with identifying responsibility for cutbacks, generating competitive social policy deregulation, as well as fragmentation of pro-welfare state interest groups.
The non-uniformity of this experience is attested to by Anindita Mukherjee (NALSAR University of Law, India). In her post, she examines the role played and challenges posed by institutional structures, particularly those of centripetal Indian federalism, in safeguarding socio-economic rights in the face of the emergency action implemented to protect residents against COVID-19. She analyses the relationship that has emerged between the Union and State governments, and between the Supreme Court of India and State High Courts. She then argues that India needs to first work towards meaningful decentralization before it can attempt to operationalize a real social safety net. Her post addresses the need for investing in institutional structures other than courts to enable the successful realization of social rights.
Marcelo Figueredo (Pontifical Catholic University, São Paulo; IACL-AIDC) in his post considers the constitutional and political dimensions of state responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. He outlines the challenges to meaningful engagement over the pandemic, against the backdrop of widespread denialism at the highest levels of government. He also sketches out how inter-branch conflict has intensified as a result of the crisis. Marcelo’s post highlights how the branches of government need to work in unison, and not be in perpetual tension, in order to deliver on social guarantees.

These four strands and the posts that engage with them represent only a part of the wide variety of discussions within academic and practitioner circles which will likely occur in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this symposium is to spur conversation and public debate, while also encouraging scholarly engagement with the issues presented. I hope you enjoy the discussion – please reach out to me if you wish to be part of the Research Group on Social Rights.



Gaurav Mukherjee is an SJD Candidate in Comparative Constitutional Law at the Central European University, Budapest. He is a co-convenor of the IACL Research Group on Social Rights and was an Indian Equality Law Visiting Fellow at the University of Melbourne, 2019.

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Relaunching the IACL Research Group on Social Rights, 2020


We are pleased to announce the relaunch of the IACL Research Group on Social Rights (RGSR) in 2020. As we enter a new decade with newer challenges being mounted to existing regimes of social protection and the enactment of new ones, the RGSR serves as a semi-institutionalised setting for sharpening current debates in legal scholarship and proposing directions for further research. The RGSR looks to enable scholarly conversations between academics researching and writing about international and domestic law relating to social rights.

Substantively, the RGSR will ask newer questions about the relationship between social rights and the broader political and social setting within which they are embedded. In an age of deepening inequality, what role should citizen entitlements from the government play in creating a safety net to provide the conditions necessary for human flourishing? How should levels of entitlements be judicially managed and adjudicated? Should courts or the representative branches be the focus of engagement for civil society coalitions? 

These are only some of the questions which this RG will engage with while acknowledging that the research agenda will be set in a collaborative way by the members of the RGSR. Three lines of enquiry form the priority for the RGSR, with members being free to suggest additions or elaborations, as well as sub-questions which can be subsumed within these. 

First, theorizing responses to claims that SR serve to cement a political imaginary concerned primarily with adequacy, rather than the setting of standards. Relatedly, the RGSR will look to situate its discussions within the broader political economy in which these rights are articulated. 

Second, the RGSR will explore the institutional forms which such responses can take, including newer forms of judicial review, or the increasing use of diagonal forms of accountability in the shape of human rights commissions and ombudsman bodies. 

Third, the RGSR will explore the relationship between equitable outcomes in social provisioning and the increasing algorithmization of the welfare beneficiary identification and delivery processes. 

Fourth, the RGSR will consider questions on the relationship between domestic constitutional and supranational adjudicatory responses to changes in social entitlements which have been altered in the wake of the global financial crisis. 

Fifth, the RGSR will consider the lessons which can be drawn from the judicial treatment of social rights across a variety of jurisdictions and what their implications are for comparative constitutional theory. 

As part of the relaunch, we aim to facilitate the dissemination of our group's research to a broader audience through short blog posts of approximately 600 - 800 words which will be posted on the RGSR site, while also being crossposted on the IACL Blog. Please email your proposals (100 words) for posts on issues relating to any of the above-identified areas by 5 March 2020 to Gaurav Mukherjee (mukherjee_gaurav@phd.ceu.edu). 



-  George Katrougalos
    Marcelo Figueiredo
    Victor Bazan
    Gaurav Mukherjee

Digest of Developments on Social Rights (Winter 2019 - 2020)


Developments in Courts and News

1. Human Rights Watch submitted a review to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ in respect of France on its treatment of unaccompanied migrant children and its protection of students, teachers, and schools during armed conflict under the ICESCR.

2. A Dutch court ordered the immediate halt of an automated surveillance system for detecting welfare fraud because it violates human rights

3. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it would not reconsider a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saying that enforcement of Boise’s ordinances constituted cruel and unusual punishment when “there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [the jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters].”

4. The High Court of Kenya halted a controversial biometric ID scheme until new data protection laws are enacted.

New Scholarship

1. Alexandre de le Court, Sufficiency principle and minimum social security benefits: an analysis from the perspective of the German right to a minimum of subsistence 32(2) Rev. derecho (Valdivia) (2019) (analyzing the recent case concerning social minimum in Germany from a comparative perspective).

2. Renu Ghimire, Right to Housing as a Fundamental Right in Post-Earthquake Nepal: The Interplay of Municipal and International Law 3 Nat. Jud. Acad. L.J. 205 (2019) (describing the heightened need for protection and interaction between domestic and international law in emergent situations in South Asia).

3. Toomas Kotkas, Ingrid Leijten, Frans Pennings (eds.), Specifying and Securing a Social Minimum in the Battle Against Poverty (2019) (bringing together a wide variety of perspectives on the legal and academic dimensions of a social minimum and its expression in law and policy across jurisdictions).

4. Juan Carlos Benito Sánchez, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Decisions on the Right to Housing in Spain (2017–2018), in Ben Djazia et al., Forced Evictions and Judicial Developments Michel Vols, and Christoph U. Schmid (eds.), Houses, Homes and the Law. Studies in Housing Law (The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2019) (putting together CESCR committee decisions on forced evictions).

5. Jessie M. Hohmann, The Elements of Adequate Housing: Grenfell as Violation 5(2) Queen Mary Human Rights Law Review 1 (2019) (considering the Grenfell Tower fire as a breach of the right to housing by the UK, in contravention of its obligations under international law).

6. Conor Casey, Courts, Public Interest Litigation, and Homelessness: A Commentary on Recent Case Law Dublin University Law Journal (2019) (Forthcoming) (providing a summary of jurisprudence emerging from the High Court of Ireland).

7. Jootaek Lee, The Human Right to Education: Definition, Research and Annotated Bibliography 34(3) Emory International Law Review (2019).


 Announcements and Events

1. The Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, will host a one-week intensive short course on judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in Africa from 18 to 22 May 2020. Apply online here

2. The 16th Economic and Social Rights Academic Network: UK & Ireland (ESRAN-UKI) workshop will be held at the University of Liverpool, School of Law and Social Justice on Friday 20 March 2020. Abstracts due by 21 February. 

3. The Law and Development Institute and Bucerius Law School will co-host the 2020 Law and Development Conference on “Law and Development in High-Income Countries” in Hamburg, Germany on November 6, 2020.

4. The Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, will host a one-week intensive short course on judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in Africa on 18-23 May 2020.

5. The University of Nottingham Human Rights Law Centre and Doughty Street Chambers will be co-hosting a one-day training course entitled “Social Rights in Europe: Advocacy and Litigation” on Tuesday 10th March 2020.



Wednesday, July 25, 2018


Replacing ‘Fortress’ Conservation with Rights-based Approaches Helps Bring Justice for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, Reduces Conflict, and Enables Cost-effective Conservation and Climate Action

Authors Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Janis Alcorn, Augusta Molnar:

https://rightsandresources.org/en/publication/cornered-by-protected-areas/#.W1i_BlBKiUk

Friday, October 16, 2015

Can Human Rights bring Social Justice?

http://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/can_human_rights_bring_social_justice.pdf

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Right to education, Public Hearing and Strategic Litigation in Brazil

On December, 16th, 2013, the Higher Court of State of São Paulo delivered a landmark judgment in a civilian action (“ação civil pública”) against the Municipality of São Paulo, which aimed to provide education for 736 children and to expand the supply of childhood education by building school units to meet the demand officially registered, and also to compensate those missed for moral and material damages, due to the State Omission. The right of children to education has been regarded as priority obligation of the Municipality, provided for by the Brazilian Constitution in a judicial review (Appeal n. 0150735-64.2008.8.26.0002).
The Municipality of São Paulo was compelled to create new vacancies in nurseries and pre-schools sufficient to attend the number needed within the assigned period. It was compelled to provide for  the expansion of the childhood education services in the budget law and to present, within the stipulated time, a plan to increase the enrollment of children and the buildings for education. In addition, it was required to present full reports on the measures taken to comply with the judicial order, every six months.
The civilian action was filed by several NGOs, as part of the self-styled “nurseries for all movement”. For first time the Court of São Paulo State called a public hearing to listen to litigants, experts on education, prosecutors and public defenders.
In its reasons, the Court made reference to the Brazilian Supreme Court (“Supremo Tribunal Federal”) case on right to education for children (RE 410.715-5) construing article 208, IV of the Brazilian Constitution (a duty to provide education to children up to six years old).  The education of children had been conceived, at that time, as an “indispensable constitutional prerogative”, “one of the most expressive social rights” and as a limitation to political-administrative discretionary nature of municipal entities. Importantly, it not subject to the “reserve of possible” doctrine (This doctrine is normally invoked by State in order to avoid compliance with certain programmatic provisions on the grounds of lack of resources. However  but that this is a uniquely Brazilian interpretation of the doctrine, that is quite different from the German conception of the doctrine (BVerfGE 33, 303, Numerus Clausus).)
The following articles of the Federal Constitution were mentioned: art. 205 (education as a right of the citizen and a state duty), 208, IV, 211, § 2o (municipalities duties on elementary school) and 227 (children priority and state, society and family duties). Also the following precedents of the Supreme Court related to education non-retrocession were invoked: RE n. 639337 and RE 464.143.
The non-retrocession principle is a prohibition on a reduction in administrative measures and laws cannot providing for social rights. The Constitutional Court of Portugal was the first to invoke this principle and it influence In Brazil can be traced to the influence of the German form of the doctrine.
The prohibition of social regressivity principle (principle of the retrocession prohibition) which was invoked in this case had also been invoked in other cases involving unconstitutional administrative omission, such as the case regarding expansion and improvement in public service for pregnant women (RE 581352).
The Court of the State of São Paulo took into account the fact the management of the City of São Paulo had signed a commitment of creating one hundred fifty thousand new places at the education services as part of its budget planning goals (In Brazil, the Executive Branch has to send to Parliament its proposal for Multiannual Plan, every four years).
The municipality was compelled to create these places, between the years 2014 and 2016 for children up to five years old, to include in the budget proposal the expansion of education services and to present every six months reports on the measures taken to the Youth and Children Section of the Judiciary, which may call prosecutors, public defenders and civil society, in general, to monitor the compliance with the judgment.
On the question of education subject matter, the Supreme Court of Brazil had stated that article 211, §2o of the Federal Constitution is a programmatic rule which finds achievement by means of laws intended to implement public policies (RE 401880).
In a case regarding the failure of the President to eradicate illiteracy, the action was dismissed by the Supreme Court (ADI 1698), since specific statutes had been enacted and according to social indicators the illiteracy rate had been reduced.
In addition, according to the criteria established by OAS Permanent Council Resolution n. 1022, the states parties must submit periodic reports, with quantitative and qualitative information with progress indicators in the area of economic, social and cultural rights - article 19 of OAS San Salvador Protocol.
Public hearings, budget process and social indicators, including human rights indicators, should also compose the reasoning of judges.
Marcelo Figueiredo and Konstantin Gerber, IACL Social Rights Research Group - Latin American Subgroup.

Thank´s to Professor Adrienne Stone for the review.

Popular Posts