The Complaint
The collective complaint was lodged by FEANTSA and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) against France. It concerns the increasing use of municipal ordinances repressing behaviours commonly adopted by people experiencing homelessness in public space, including begging and other survival-related activities.
The complainant organisations argued that the absence of specific legal or regulatory safeguards at national level to regulate the proliferation and content of such ordinances demonstrates that the French legal framework is not protective of people experiencing homelessness. They contended that these measures form part of a broader continuum of policies that penalise poverty, reinforce social exclusion, and disproportionately affect individuals living in extreme precarity.
The complaint alleged violations of Articles 1 (right to work), 11 (right to protection of health), 30 (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion), 31 (right to housing) and Article E (non-discrimination) of the revised European Social Charter, taken alone or in conjunction.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint admissible on 17 October 2023.
The Decision on the Merits
In its decision on the merits made public on 5 March 2026, the European Committee of Social Rights found that France had violated the European Social Charter.
The Committee adopted a substantive, contextual and rights-based interpretation of Article 30, emphasising that measures penalising begging and related behaviours must be assessed in light of the structural situation of poverty and homelessness, and not merely as isolated public-order regulations.
The Committee found that the contested ordinances:
-
directly affect the survival conditions of people experiencing homelessness;
-
have negative consequences for health and access to social and health services;
-
have indirect but significant effects on access to housing;
-
reinforce stigma, marginalisation and social exclusion.
The Committee rejected arguments based on economic attractiveness, general public order concerns, or perceived insecurity, finding that such justifications are insufficient and, in some cases, rooted in prejudice.
Key Violations Identified
The decision highlights the following violations:
-
Article 30 – Right to protection against poverty and social exclusion
The Committee held that punitive approaches to poverty are incompatible with Article 30. Criminalising behaviours linked to survival in public space aggravates social exclusion and undermines access to basic rights.
-
Lack of effective remedies (Article 30)
The Committee found an autonomous violation of Article 30 due to the absence of effective remedies, noting in particular:
- the limited and ineffective control exercised by prefectural authorities;
- the excessive length of judicial proceedings;
- the limited deterrent effect of judicial annulments;
- the material impossibility for NGOs to challenge the large number of ordinances in force.
-
Article E in conjunction with Article 30 – Non-discrimination
The Committee concluded that the contested measures constitute indirect discrimination, as they disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness and poverty, even where no discriminatory intent is explicitly stated.
While the Committee examined the broader impacts of the measures on health (Article 11) and housing (Article 31), it chose to integrate these considerations into its analysis under Article 30, recognising the interconnected and systemic nature of the violations.
Significance of the Decision
This decision represents a landmark ruling on the criminalisation of poverty in public space. It:
-
consolidates Article 30 as a central standard for challenging punitive policies targeting homelessness;
-
recognises the cumulative and systemic impact of public-space regulation on social rights;
-
affirms the essential role of civil society organisations in contesting structural violations;
-
provides a strong jurisprudential basis for challenging similar measures in other Council of Europe member states.
The ruling confirms that policies penalising poverty not only fail to address homelessness, but actively deepen social exclusion, in violation of the European Social Charter.
Decision on the Merits
Decision on the merits of Collective Complaint No. 224/2023 : https://hudoc.esc.coe.int/?i=cc-224-2023-dmerits-en
