Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 28 [Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection]

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • 3451 Accesses

Abstract

Article 28 of the CRPD by jointly recognizing to persons with disabilities the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to social protection conjugates in the same provision the guarantees enshrined in Articles 9 and 11 of the ICESCR. The raison d’être of the provision consists in obligating Contracting States to satisfy basic needs of persons with disabilities (e.g., adequate food, clothing, housing, including public housing programs, clean water, retirement benefits and programs, as well as social protection and poverty reduction programs) and to ensure that all persons with disabilities and their families be able to enjoy access to a minimum essential level of such rights without discrimination. Indeed, a clear indication there exists that persons with disabilities are more likely, than other individuals, to be caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and disability, each of which is both a cause and consequence of the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by UNGA resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.

  2. 2.

    See the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities Working Group, Draft Article 23—Social Security and an Adequate Standard of Living, UN Doc. A/AC.265/2004/WG/1, Annex I. As to the negotiations taken forward by the Ad Hoc Committee, see Kayess and French (2008).

  3. 3.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 5, Persons with Disabilities, UN Doc. E/1995/22, 9 December 1994, para. 33.

  4. 4.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 12, Right to Adequate Food, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 (1999), 12 May 1999, para. 6.

  5. 5.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 12, cit., para. 12.

  6. 6.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 12, cit., para. 13.

  7. 7.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 12, cit., para. 13. The emphasis is added.

  8. 8.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 4, The right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1)), UN Doc. E/1992/23, 13 December 1991, para. 7.

  9. 9.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 4, para. 8. Emphasis is added.

  10. 10.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 19, The right to social security (art. 9), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/19, 4 February 2008, para. 28.

  11. 11.

    See the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities adopted by UNGA resolution 48/96 of 20 December 1993, A/RES/48/96, 4 March 1994. The Standard Rules were the major outcome of the Decade of Disabled Persons, and, although not a legally binding instrument, they represent a strong moral and political commitment of governments to take action to attain equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. The Rules serve as an instrument for policy making and as a basis for technical and economic cooperation and may be used as a source of interpretative guidance of ICESCR provisions in the context of disability.

  12. 12.

    CESCR, General Comment No. 5, cit., para. 28.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    See paras. 4 and 5.

  15. 15.

    See para. 6.

  16. 16.

    As far as the setting up by States of social protection floors is concerned, ILO Recommendation No. 202 asks that all Countries lay down Social Protection Floors (SPF) to provide at least the following basic social security guarantees: (a) access to a nationally defined set of goods and services, constituting essential healthcare; (b) basic income security for children, at least at a nationally defined minimum level; (c) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for persons in active age who are unable to earn sufficient income, including in particular in cases of sickness, unemployment, maternity, and disability; and (d) basic income security, at least at a nationally defined minimum level, for older persons (see ILO, Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection, adopted on 14 June 2012, Article 4; the emphasis is added).

  17. 17.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 15: The right to water (Articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant), UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2002), 20 January 2003, para. 1.

  18. 18.

    See CESCR, General Comment No. 15, cit., para. 2.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    As far as the approach of the CESCR to the States Parties’ obligations is concerned and for an analysis of the tripartite typology theory that it has developed in this subject matter, see, inter alia, Sepulveda (2003), pp. 173 ff. and, in particular, pp. 196–248.

  21. 21.

    See Young (2008).

  22. 22.

    See, infra, para. 2.2.

  23. 23.

    See CESCR, Concluding Observations, Portugal [Macao], E/C.12/1/Add.9, 6 December 1996, para. 17; Concluding Observations, Georgia, E/C.12/1/Add.42, 17 May 2000, paras. 12 and 25; Concluding Observations, Ireland, E/C.12/1/Add.35, 14 May 1999, para. 17; Concluding Observations, Spain, E/C.12/1/Add.2, 28 May 1996, para. 14; Concluding Observations, Philippines, E/C.12/1995/7, 7 June 1995, para. 18; Concluding Observations, Solomon Islands, E/C.12/1/Add.33, 14 May 1999, para. 18. See also CESCR, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties' Obligations (Art. 2, Para. 1, of the Covenant), UN Doc. E/1991/23, 14 December 1990, para. 12 and General Comment No. 4, cit., para. 11. As far as an analysis of the impact of economic crisis on the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights is concerned, see Fasciglione (2014) and the legal literature cited therein.

  24. 24.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Brazil, CRPD/C/BRA/CO/1, 29 September 2015, paras. 50–51.

  25. 25.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Argentina, CRPD/C/ARG/CO/1, 8 October 2012, paras. 45–46.

  26. 26.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, China, CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1, 15 October 2012, paras. 43–44.

  27. 27.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, El Salvador, CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, 8 October 2013, paras. 57–58; mutatis mutandis see Concluding Observations, Germany, CRPD/C/DEU/CO/1, 13 May 2015, paras. 51–52 and Concluding Observations, Mongolia, CRPD/C/MNG/CO/1, 13 May 2015, paras. 42–43.

  28. 28.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Gabon, CRPD/C/GAB/CO/1, 2 October 2015, paras. 60–61.

  29. 29.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Ecuador, CRPD/C/ECU/CO/1, 27 October 2014, para. 44–45.

  30. 30.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Czech Republic, CRPD/C/CZE/CO/1, 15 May 2015, paras. 53–54.

  31. 31.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Republic of Korea, CRPD/C/KOR/CO/1, 29 October 2014, paras. 53–54.

  32. 32.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, European Union, CRPD/C/EU/CO/1, 4 September, 2015, para. 66–67.

  33. 33.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Ukraine, CRPD/C/UKR/CO/1, 2 October, 2015, paras. 52–53.

  34. 34.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Costa Rica, CRPD/C/CRI/CO/1, 12 May 2014, paras. 57–58; see mutatis mutandis Concluding Observations, Turkmenistan, CRPD/C/TKM/CO/1, 13 May 2015, paras. 43–44.

  35. 35.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Croatia, CRPD/C/HRV/CO/1, 15 May 2015, paras. 43–44; see mutatis mutandis: Concluding Observations, Kenya, CRPD/C/KEN/CO/1, 30 September 2015, paras. 49–50; Concluding Observations, Mexico, CRPD/C/MEX/CO/1, 27 October 2014, paras. 53–54.

  36. 36.

    See CRPD Committee, Concluding Observations, Dominican Republic, CRPD/C/DOM/CO/1, 8 May 2015, paras. 52–53.

  37. 37.

    This ‘restraint’ of the ECtHR may be explained with the circumstance that accepting such an obligation upon States will entail an inestimable (and perhaps excessive) burden on the economic capacity of the concerned State (examples of this tendency of the Court may be found, inter alia, in the case Botta v. Italy, Judgement of 24 February 1998, and in the decision on the admissibility of 14 May 2002 in the case Zehnalová and Zehnal v. Czech Republic (dec.), Application No. 38621/97). Critical remarks to such approach may be found in De Schutter (2005) and in Abello Jimenez (2015).

  38. 38.

    See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Stanev v. Bulgaria, Judgement of 17 January 2012.

  39. 39.

    See ECtHR, Koua Poirrez v. France, Judgement of 30 September 2003.

  40. 40.

    See ECtHR, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, Judgement of 12 October 2004. It is interesting to stress that according to the Court, “[i]t would have been otherwise had the applicant been obliged to endure a reasonable and commensurate reduction rather than the total deprivation of his entitlements” (para. 45).

  41. 41.

    See ECtHR, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary, Judgment of 10 February 2015. This case has been referred to the Grand Chamber in June 2015.

  42. 42.

    See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Draon v. France and Maurice v. France, Judgments of 6 October 2005.

  43. 43.

    Regulation (EU) No 492/2011, 5 April 2011, on freedom of movement for workers within the Union [2011] OJ L 141/1.

  44. 44.

    As far as the Luxembourg Court case law in this subject matter is concerned, see, e.g., ECJ, Case 76/72, Michel S. v Fonds national de reclassement social des handicaps, Judgment of 11 April 1973, ECR 457; and ECJ, Case C-326/90, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, Judgment of 10 November 1992, ECR I-5517.

  45. 45.

    See Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) [2009] OJ L 204/23-36.

Table of Cases

  • ECtHR 24.02.1998, Application No. 21439/93, Botta v Italy, ECHR-1998 I, (1998) 26 EHRR 241

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 14.05.2002, Application No. 38621/97, Zehnalová and Zehnal v Czech Republic (dec.), ECHR 2002-V

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 30.09.2003, Application No. 40892/98, Koua Poirrez v France, ECHR 2003-X

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 12.10.2004, Application No. 60669/00, Kjartan Ásmundsson v Iceland, ECHR 2004-IX

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 06.10.2005, Application No. 1513/03, Draon v France, ECHR 2005-IX

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 06.10.2005, Application No. 11810/03, Maurice v France, ECHR 2005-IX

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 17.01.2012, Application No. 36760/06, Stanev v Bulgaria, ECHR-2012

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR 10.02.2015, Application No. 53080/13, Béláné Nagy v Hungary, [2015] ECHR 144

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 11.04.1973, Case 76/72, Michel S v Fonds national de reclassement social des handicaps, ECR 457

    Google Scholar 

  • ECJ 10.11.1992, Case C-326/90, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, ECR I-5517

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Abello Jiménez AE (2015) Criminalizing disability: the urgent need of a new reading of the European Convention on Human Rights. Am Univ Int Law Rev 30(2):285–313

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2005) Reasonable accommodation and positive obligations in the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Lawson A, Gooding C (eds) Disability rights in Europe: from theory to practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland, pp 35–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasciglione M (2014) The protection of economic, social and cultural rights of persons belonging to marginalized and vulnerable groups in times of financial crisis: how to reconcile the irreconcilable? Eur Yearb Minor Issues 11:1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayess R, French P (2008) Out of darkness into light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Hum Rights Law Rev 8:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sepulveda MM (2003) The nature of the obligations under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Young KG (2008) The minimum core of economic and social rights: a concept in search of content. Yale Journ Int Law 33:113–175

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Research on Innovation and Services for Development (IRISS), National Research Council (CNR), Naples, Italy

    Marco Fasciglione

Authors
  1. Marco Fasciglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Fasciglione .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Valentina Della Fina

  2. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Rachele Cera

  3. Institute for International Legal Studies, National Research Council (CNR), Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Palmisano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fasciglione, M. (2017). Article 28 [Adequate Standard of Living and Social Protection]. In: Della Fina, V., Cera, R., Palmisano, G. (eds) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43790-3_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43788-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43790-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation