Important, but not Fundamental?

Abstract

This article attempts to shed light on how both the ECtHR and the Austrian VfGH have contributed to the protection of existing social benefits, to the right to equal access to social benefits and perhaps even to the establishment of a right to a dignified minimum subsistence. Although neither Court can refer to a catalogue of fundamental social rights, both have developed case-law that provides fundamental guarantees for social benefits. This article demonstrates that even conventional fundamental rights guarantees, such as the right to property and equality, can be used to protect social benefits. Equally, however, this article identifies inconsistencies in the case­-law and points the way to possible future developments.

Keywords

• comparative law; social rights; right to property; right to equality; right to a dignified minimum subsistence; migration law