Best Protection Against Eviction?

A Comparative Analysis of Protection Against Evictions in the European Convention on Human Rights and the South African Constitution

in European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This study focuses on two legal instruments that grant robust protection against eviction: the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) and the South African Constitution (sa Constitution). It compares the protection offered by these two instruments to ascertain which of these instruments offer the most comprehensive protection to unlawful occupiers. This is done so as to determine whether and to what extent these instruments should adopt the protections and approaches offered by the other. It is concluded that, although prima facie the instruments offer similar protection, the implementation of the protections under the sa Constitution offers greater protection. While this can be justified by the socio-economic realities in South Africa, some recommendations regarding the implementation of protections under the echr are made.

Best Protection Against Eviction?

A Comparative Analysis of Protection Against Evictions in the European Convention on Human Rights and the South African Constitution

in European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance

Sections

References

11

L. Meintjies-Van der Walt et alIntroduction to South African law fresh perspectives Third Edition (Cape Town: Pearson Education and Prentice Hall2013) 44.

12

S. Terreblanche‘Constraints to Democracy and Public Reasoning in the New South Africa’Philosophy and Social Criticism 41(1) (2015) 37 at 40 44.

19

S. GreerThe European Convention on Human Rights Achievements Problems and Prospects (New York: Cambridge University Press2006) 1.

27

 See J.M. HohmannThe Right to Housing: Law Concepts Possibilities (Oxford: Hart Publishing2013) 94–108.

35

 See C.U. Schmid and J.R. Dinse‘European dimensions of residential tenancy law’European Review of Contract Law 9(3) (2013) 201–220; S. Nield ‘Article 8 Respect for the home - A human property right?’ King’s Law Journal 23(2) (2013) 147–171.

49

 See L.F. M’HonyConceptualising Home. Theories Laws and Policies (Oxford: Hart Pub­lishing2007) 477–481; Remiche ‘Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria: The influence of the social right to adequate housing on the interpretation of the civil right to respect for one’s home’ (n 42) 787–800; S. Nield ‘Clash of the titans: Article 8 occupiers and their home’ in: S. Bright (ed) Modern Studies in Property Law - Volume 6 (Oxford: Hart 2011) at 102; Nield ‘Article 8 Respect for the home - A human property right?’ (n 35) 147–171

52

A.J. Van der WaltProperty in the Margins (Portland: Hart Publishing2009) 107–108. Van der Walt discusses the English decision of Harrow London Borough Council v. Qazi [2004] 1 ac 983 (hl).

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 14 14 9
Full Text Views 10 10 10
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0