European Norms, Court Practices, and Legal Options in the Netherlands
Summary
Since March 2022, the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) has been active in the European Union for persons fleeing the war in Ukraine. This has led to a large-scale organization of reception for refugees across Europe, including in the Netherlands. Article 13 of the TPD obliges Member States to provide persons with temporary protection with adequate accommodation or the means to obtain housing themselves. However, many Ukrainians in the Netherlands are forced to live in conditions that do not meet these minimum requirements. This article explores the content and scope of the right to adequate housing in light of EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the Revised European Social Charter. Specific examples and court rulings are provided that can help Ukrainians and their advisors defend these rights in the Netherlands.
- Introduction
The Temporary Protection Directive was created as an emergency instrument for the mass reception of refugees. In the Netherlands, tens of thousands of Ukrainians are housed in municipal reception centers, hotels, sports halls, on cruise ships, and in other facilities. However, this accommodation is not a voluntary service without obligations. Article 13 of the TPD explicitly requires states to provide adequate housing or the means to find it independently. In practice, many Ukrainians face overcrowded, unsanitary, unsafe, and inaccessible premises for disabled people, which are not suitable for children or the elderly. European standards and court practices clearly show that such conditions can violate fundamental human rights.
- Legal Basis for the Right to Adequate Housing
Article 13 of the TPD does not provide an exhaustive definition of “adequate housing,” but it must be interpreted in conjunction with other European norms, such as the revised Reception Conditions Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Key is Article 1 of the Charter, which protects human dignity. The CJEU has emphasized that housing is a basic need, access to which must be guaranteed continuously and without interruption. Financial assistance instead of providing housing must be sufficient to genuinely enable a person to find adequate accommodation.
In the case of Cimade & GISTI (C-179/11, 2012), the Court stated that states cannot use the overcrowding of reception centers as a justification to evade their obligations. For the Netherlands, this means that municipalities are not entitled to evict people onto the street under the pretext that “all places are full.” In the Saciri case (C-79/13, 2014), the Court clarified that cash payments instead of accommodation must be sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living. A Ukrainian family receiving a minimal allowance that makes it impossible to rent housing can refer to this ruling.
In the Haqbin ruling (C-233/18, 2019), the Court stressed the duty of states to prevent situations of extreme material destitution where basic needs—housing, food, hygiene—are not met. This means that temporary tent camps or sports halls without privacy and sanitary facilities may violate the duty to provide adequate housing. The Ayubi case (C-713/17, 2019) emphasizes that states must consider personal circumstances, such as age and health. This is important for elderly or sick people who, in the Netherlands, are placed in large halls or on cruise ships without medical care.
In the FMS case (C-924/19 PPU, 2020), the Court confirmed the obligation to provide material assistance—in kind or in the form of a sufficient cash payment—and the right to go to court to obtain it. The H.A. ruling (C-194/19, 2020) highlights the right to an effective judicial remedy against decisions to refuse or terminate accommodation. In the Netherlands, Ukrainians can file an objection with the municipality and then appeal to the administrative court, including requesting an interim measure (a ‘vovo’) to immediately change or suspend the decision.
- European Human Rights Standards
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stated that the lack of adequate housing can be considered inhuman or degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the ECHR. In the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), the Court found it a violation to leave a person on the street without any protection. In H. and others v. France (2020), the Court ruled that living for months in tents under bridges without stable housing and without a serious response from the state is inhuman. This directly correlates with the situation in the Netherlands, where Ukrainians sometimes live for months in sports halls, on cruise ships, or in tent camps without privacy and without the prospect of improved conditions.
The case of Tarakhel v. Switzerland (2014) emphasizes the special protection of children’s rights. The Court requires an individual assessment of the needs of families with children and prohibits their placement in large dormitories without regard to these needs. In the Netherlands, there are known cases of children sleeping on cots in huge halls without partitions or privacy—which may contradict these standards.
- Social Rights and the European Social Charter
The European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) has repeatedly stated that prolonged stays in emergency shelters do not constitute “adequate housing.” In the case of ICJ & ECRE v. Greece (2021), it was found to be a violation to keep people in overcrowded temporary centers without privacy and without the prospect of decent housing. This is also applicable to the situation in the Netherlands, where Ukrainians live for months on ships or in sports halls without clear prospects for relocation.
The decision in CEC v. the Netherlands (2014) established that even persons without legal status have the right to access emergency housing, as denying it threatens their life and dignity. Municipalities cannot refuse accommodation due to disputes over registration.
The case of Defence for Children v. the Netherlands (2009) emphasized the requirement for shelters to be safe, clean, heated, and lit. In the Netherlands, there are reports of shelters with poor heating or mold—which contradicts these standards. The ERRC v. Italy decision (2005) highlights the prohibition of discrimination against Roma in access to housing. This is also relevant for Ukrainian Roma, who are sometimes denied municipal housing or rental accommodation.
- Protection of Vulnerable Groups
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides special guarantees for vulnerable groups. Article 24 enshrines the rights of the child and requires that the child’s best interests always be a primary consideration. Article 25 protects the elderly and guarantees their dignity and independence. Article 26 recognizes the right of persons with disabilities to conditions that promote their autonomy and integration. This means that in the Netherlands, shelters must be accessible for people in wheelchairs, families with children should not be placed in common halls without privacy and safety, and elderly or sick people must receive appropriate care.
- International Treaty Obligations
The right to adequate housing is also enshrined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 27) obliges states not to allow the separation of children and parents due to a lack of housing. UN committees emphasize that housing must be safe, habitable, accessible, and with special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups.
- Access to Legal Protection in the Netherlands
Although the TPD itself does not contain a separate complaints procedure, Article 47 of the EU Charter guarantees the right to an effective remedy. Ukrainians in the Netherlands who believe their accommodation does not meet the standard of adequate housing can file an objection with the municipality and then appeal to the administrative court. In doing so, they can request an interim measure (‘vovo’) to immediately suspend the execution of a decision or improve living conditions. This applies both to the termination or refusal of accommodation and to complaints about degrading conditions in already provided shelter.
- Conclusion and Recommendations
European legislation and court practice clearly show that the right to adequate housing is not just a declaration, but a legally binding norm that protects human dignity. The Netherlands does not have the right to systematically offer overcrowded, unsanitary, or unsafe shelters. Respect for privacy, safety, hygiene, and the special needs of children, the elderly, and people with disabilities must be ensured. Financial assistance instead of accommodation must be sufficient to realistically find housing.
For Ukrainians, this means they are not obliged to put up with months or years in tents, sports halls, or temporary shelters without privacy and prospects. They can invoke the Charter, the ECHR, and the practice of European courts to defend their right to adequate housing. Lawyers, municipalities, and social workers must take these standards seriously and implement them in sustainable solutions that respect human dignity.
