CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013
use the post restante address for homeless people. The author claims that he became
homeless, that he no longer had medical insurance and that later, on an unspecified date, he
started using the address of a church to receive his post.
2.8
On 16 May 2011, the author challenged the Municipality’s decision to terminate
payment of his benefits and requested benefits and/or shelter.
2.9
On 17 May 2011, the author requested the Central Agency for the Reception of
Asylum Seekers to provide him with financial assistance and/or shelter, given the state of
his health, under the Asylum Seekers and Other Categories of Aliens (Provision) Order of
2005. He provided a medical report, issued by the doctor at the Amsterdam Medical Centre
who had treated him, according to which he needed a regular lifestyle for the treatment of
HIV to be effective.1 The author further claimed that the monthly allowance of €375 that he
received from the Municipality was not enough for a person with HIV to afford adequate
food and shelter. On 7 June 2011, the Central Agency dismissed the author’s request saying
that it could only grant shelter to asylum seekers and “equivalent aliens”. On 10 June 2011,
the Central Agency added that there was no “acute medical emergency situation” justifying
an exception to its rules and obliging it to provide the author with shelter pursuant to article
3 of the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers Act. On 9 and 17 June 2011,
the author appealed to the Hague District Court against the Central Agency’s decisions; the
Court rejected the appeal on 14 March 2012. A further appeal by the author was rejected by
the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State on 23 May 2012.
2.10 The author appealed the decision regarding the revocation of benefits before the
Amsterdam District Court. He again claimed that the monthly allowance of €375 was
insufficient to afford a place to stay and food; that this interfered with the effectiveness of
his HIV treatment; that his private life was not being respected; and that the uncertainty
regarding access to medical care was inhuman. Thus, the denial of benefits in his situation
was contrary to articles 3 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). He further claimed that
irregular residence status of aliens did not remove the State party’s obligations to grant
social welfare to aliens in its territory.
2.11 On 2 November 2011, the Amsterdam District Court rejected the author’s appeal
against the Municipality’s refusal to pay benefits. The Court pointed out that the author
continued receiving medical treatment and medicine in a medical centre; that there was no
indication that this would stop; that in addition he received €375 a month from the
Municipality’s Excluded Immigrants Fund; that he had a postal address; and that, although
he lacked a fixed place to sleep, he could generally stay with various friends. Since there
was no indication that his health condition had deteriorated, the situation was not contrary
to the obligations contained in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (on
the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) and the circumstances were not
sufficiently exceptional to conclude that his private life had not been respected, which
would constitute a violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2.12 In a decision of 29 November 2011, the Municipality declared that the author did not
fall into any of the statutory categories entitled to shelter. The author appealed that decision
to the Amsterdam District Court, which rejected it on 2 February 2012. On 3 February 2012,
the author appealed that decision to the Central Appeals Court, which dismissed it on 12
June 2012. The Court stated that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
could give rise to a duty to provide a person with shelter and that the duty arose when the
refusal to provide shelter did not result from a fair balance between the need of the person
concerned and the public interest. It also noted that the medical opinion provided by the
1
The communication provides a copy of a letter dated 25 May 2011 signed by a doctor of the
Amsterdam Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam.
3