The applicant was a philosopher by profession. She claimed unemployment benefit and was told that her benefits would be reduced unless she was willing to take up a wider range of employment than she considered suitable. She complained under Article 4 that she was being forced to take up labour irrespective of whether it would be suitable for her.
Held: Her application was inadmissible. The Court noted that the obligation of which she complained was in effect a condition for the granting of benefits, and it stated as a general principle that a state which has introduced a system of social security is fully entitled to lay down conditions which have to be met for a person to be eligible for benefits under that system.
Citations:
15906/08, [2010] ECHR 820
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Reilly and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 30-Oct-2013
The Secretary of State appealed against the decision in favour of Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, that the 2011 Regulations, made under section 17A of the 1995 Act, did not comply with the requirements of that section, and (ii) a cross-appeal brought by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Employment
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416477
