In light of the consequences of the climate crisis, living in adequate housing conditions is becoming increasingly essential. Humanity is therefore confronted with the imperative of affirming the right to adequate housing as a universal human right, one that safeguards human dignity while promoting overall public health and social welfare.
Over time, the recognition of adequate housing as a human right has been progressively integrated into various regulatory frameworks. However, despite regulatory advancements at both the global and European levels, there is no universally accepted definition of what exactly constitutes the “right to adequate housing”. Furthermore, when these regulatory frameworks are compared with the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), a discrepancy emerges between the established legal standards and their practical application in case law.
Let us have a brief overview of both issues.
The human right to housing: International and European framework
“Housing conditions” refer to the minimum standards that a dwelling must meet to be considered “adequate”; and although housing legislation falls within the sovereign authority of each state, international pressure can play a key role in encouraging governments to adopt stronger legal protections for housing as a human right.
Several international initiatives and legal instruments highlight the growing global attention to this issue. The following are notable examples that illustrate this point.
I) At the international level:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR – UN), in the first paragraph of Article 25, states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food […] housing […]“.
- The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities, and specifically Target 11.1, aim to “ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services […]” by 2030”.
- The 2018 Guidelines from the World Health Organization on housing and health emphasize the importance of living conditions in saving lives, preventing diseases, and improving the quality of life, considering that “demographic and climate changes are making housing an increasingly important factor for health“.
II) Within the European framework:
- The Revised European Social Charter also recognizes, in Article 31, that everyone has the right to housing and commits to adopting measures to “promote access to housing of an adequate standard”.
However, the formal recognition of this right does not necessarily translate into coherent and uniform judicial practice. Accordingly, the next section presents a case law analysis exploring how, despite its formal recognition in supranational regulations, the effective implementation of this right continues to face significant barriers.
Relevant cases in jurisprudential treatment of the right to adequate housing: The European Court of Human Rights
Despite the numerous references in the aforementioned legal sources to the right to decent or adequate housing, with access to essential and high-quality services, there is no precise definition of what exactly constitutes adequate living conditions or their specific content. As a result, their determination remains highly discretionary at both national and supranational levels.
Notably, from 2000 to 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled on very few cases concerning the judicial protection of adequate housing, particularly when compared to the vast number of legal instruments recognizing this right. Moreover, most of these cases focus on protection against eviction – i.e., access to housing – rather than on the habitability conditions of such housing.
Here, we will consider two specific cases that may offer valuable insights into the ECHR’s jurisprudential approach to the enforcement of this right. The cases are (1) Hudorovič and Others v. Slovenia (Judgment of 7 September 2020), from now on “Hudorovič”; and (2) Kopnin and Others v. Russia (Judgment of 28 August 2014), from now on “Kopnin”).
1. The compatibility of state actions with the enforcement of this right is closely tied to the ECHR’s discretionary assessment
In “Hudorovič”, adequate housing is regarded as a “fundamental human necessity”, whereas in “Kopnin”, it is treated as “a socio-economic matter”, leaving unclear the Court’s position on whether adequate housing is a universal right or merely a resource subject to economic constraints.
The following excerpts illustrate this point:
“The Court has also found that if a domestic judgment concerns a basic necessity for a person in need, even a one-year delay is incompatible with the Convention […] “In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite a lack of funds or other resources, such as housing, as an excuse for not honoring a judgment debt”
(“Hudorovič”)
“The State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention […] In socio-economic matters such as housing the margin of appreciation available to the State is necessarily a wide one […]”.
(“Kopnin”)
2. The extent of state authority remains undefined, varying depending on the case
In some instances, it is subject to temporal limitations, while in others, it is unrestricted.
In these examples, in “Hudorovič”, the ECHR imposed strict temporal limits on state inaction; whereas in “Kopnin”, it refrained from imposing any such constraints.
3. The role of state resources differs between the cases.
In “Hudorovič”, resource availability was deemed irrelevant to the fulfilment of the right to adequate housing; while in “Kopnin”, access to adequate housing was made contingent upon the state’s financial capacity.
Some concluding remarks: a still unfulfilled quest
Based on the foregoing analysis, we can conclude saying that:
1) The widespread classification of the right to adequate housing as a fundamental right, while underscoring its importance and reflecting the broader trend toward normative expansion previously discussed, does not translate into significant practical impact in case resolution.
This is due to the indeterminacy of supranational provisions, which fail to exert uniform influence across all situations. It can also be attributed to a judicial ideology that seeks to avoid “creating problems” for states and remains overly deferential to the neoliberal dogma of budgetary balance and public spending limitations.
2) The compatibility of the ECHR’s actions with the legal framework recognising the right to adequate housing is subject to a flexible and, in general, rather lenient and tolerant assessment by the ECHR.
Depending on the context, the ECHR may interpret adequate housing as a “basic necessity” (as in “Kopnin”) or as a socio-economic matter (as in “Hudorovič”). Consequently, it remains unclear whether the ECHR recognizes adequate housing as a universal right, in line with the normative framework previously analysed, or as a resource whose enjoyment depends on the availability of state resources.
3) The scope of action granted to state authorities is not uniform
In some cases, the Court imposes specific time limits (as in the Kopnin case), whereas in others, no such restrictions are established (as in the Hudorovič case). This demonstrates a degree of discretion in the application of legal norms, resulting in varying levels of protection in concrete cases.
4) As a result, the emphasis on the right to adequate housing does not generate uniform outcomes in dispute resolution.
This is a consequence of the vagueness of legal provisions and the ideological factors previously highlighted.
This work was carried out under a PhD Scholarship granted by the University of Genoa, during a visiting research period at the Lisbon Public Law Research Centre, Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon, focused on the study of the housing right.
SUGGESTED CITATION: Boada Pérez, Yuneisy: “An advance look at adequate housing: the quest for a universal human right”, FOLBlog, 2025/10/01, https://fol.ius.bg.ac.rs/2025/10/01/an-advance-look-at-adequate-housing-the-quest-for-a-universal-human-right/