Decision on the merits in FEANTSA and FIDH v France (No. 224/2023)
In its decision on the merits in FEANTSA and FIDH v France (No. 224/2023) made published on 5th March, the European Committee of Social Rights firmly condemned local policies criminalising begging, marking a major step forward in challenging the penalisation of poverty and homelessness in Europe.
A substantive and protective reading of Article 30
The Committee adopts a contextual and rights-based interpretation of Article 30 of the European Social Charter (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion). It explicitly recognises that anti-begging by-laws:
- form part of a continuum of exclusionary policies;
- directly affect survival conditions, health, and access to services;
- have indirect but significant effects on access to housing.
Such measures must be assessed in light of structural poverty, rather than in isolation. For civil society organisations, this confirms that penalising survival-related behaviours falls squarely within the scope of Article 30.
Article 30 as a central strategic tool
Rather than rejecting arguments based on the right to health (Article 11) or housing (Article 31), the Committee integrates them into a comprehensive reading of Article 30. This approach allows NGOs to address the systemic impacts of punitive policies without having to prove separate violations of each social right.
Unjustified and disproportionate restrictions
The Committee finds that anti-begging measures are unjustified and disproportionate:
- their legal basis lacks clarity and foreseeability;
- legitimate aims are strictly limited to severe cases (human trafficking, exploitation, highly aggressive begging);
- they are neither necessary nor proportionate in a democratic society.
'Economic attractiveness', 'public order', and 'perceived insecurity' are explicitly rejected as valid justifications, with the latter identified as rooted in prejudice and stigmatisation.
Recognition of concrete harm to people experiencing homelessness
The decision strongly acknowledges that such measures:
- push people away from city centres and essential services;
- disrupt access to social and health support;
- weaken social relationships;
- reinforce stigma and trauma;
- impose ineffective and inappropriate sanctions.
The Committee describes this as “double victimisation”: people are punished both for being poor and for the survival strategies poverty forces upon them.
Rejection of punitive approaches and recognition of NGO roles
The Committee clearly states that punitive approaches are counterproductive and incompatible with Article 30. It promotes rights-based, non-coercive responses, grounded in coordination, trust, and social support.
It also finds a separate violation due to the lack of effective remedies, explicitly acknowledging the litigation burden placed on NGOs and recognising their systemic role in protecting social rights.
Indirect discrimination based on socio-economic status
Crucially, the Committee finds a violation of Article E in conjunction with Article 30, recognising indirect discrimination based on poverty. Measures that appear neutral may be discriminatory when rooted in stereotypes and producing disproportionate impacts on people experiencing homelessness.
A decision with Europe-wide relevance
The decision on the merits is of clear relevance beyond the French context. It contributes to the interpretation of Article 30 by clarifying the incompatibility of punitive approaches to homelessness with States’ obligations to prevent and reduce social exclusion. While its impact will depend on how it is taken up at national level, the decision provides important legal arguments for challenging measures that penalise homelessness and for reinforcing approaches grounded in dignity and inclusion.
