Torna alla ricerca
Corte Edu, 6.11.2017, Garib c. Olanda (Ricorso n. 43494/09)
| | | |CEDU - art. 2, protocollo 4 - libertà di circolazione e residenza - restrizioni imposte da una amministrazione locale - finalità di evitare il declino di aree urbane - legittimità - soggetto leso - madre single - irrilevanza - discriminazione multipla - insussistenza.
Non viola l\'art. 2, protocollo 4 della CEDU sulla libertà di circolazione e la libertà di residenza un provvedimento di una amministrazione locale che stabilisca limiti di residenza in un determinato quartiere, se tali limiti sono apposti al fine legittimo di evitare il declino di aree urbane e imigliorare la qualità della vita e se i mezzi adottati sono proporzionati a detta finalità; il fatto che tali limitazioni colpiscano una madre single che, in quanto tale, si trova in condizioni di particolare fragilità non muta la conclusiuone di cui sopra.
Gender discrimination – single mother – access to housing – no discrimination – no violation of Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 of ECHR.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement / freedom to choose one’s residence) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not violated by a Dutch law setting the establishment of new residences in a district subject to authorization (the case concerned a single mother, which living only on unemployment benefit, had been refused the authorization to live in a Rotterdam distrct). The restriction of the right to establish residence, aimed at combating impoverishment and unemployment in metropolitan areas, appears legitimate and proportionate, as it does not apply in some situations of particular need and it still enables the applicant to settle in other areas of the same city.
Gender discrimination – single mother – access to housing – no discrimination – no violation of Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 of ECHR.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement / freedom to choose one’s residence) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not violated by a Dutch law setting the establishment of new residences in a district subject to authorization (the case concerned a single mother, which living only on unemployment benefit, had been refused the authorization to live in a Rotterdam distrct). The restriction of the right to establish residence, aimed at combating impoverishment and unemployment in metropolitan areas, appears legitimate and proportionate, as it does not apply in some situations of particular need and it still enables the applicant to settle in other areas of the same city.
Per un introduzione alle nozioni di discriminazione multipla/intersezionale, leggi la nota di Barbara Giovanna Bello e Letizia Mancini