| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
''Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions'' () EWHC 2292 (Admin) was a 2012 legal case heard by the Administrative Division of the High Court in which Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and an unemployed driver, Jamieson Wilson, challenged the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy whereby the unemployed can be "forced" to work for private companies for their benefit payments. Under the workfare scheme, individuals have the right to opt out, but face having their benefits removed—something that makes participation in the scheme necessary for those who would be unable to support themselves without their benefit payments. The outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.〔http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28158483〕
== First High Court ruling ==
On 6 August 2012, the High Court ruled (contrary to the arguments of Reilly and Wilson) that the scheme could not be considered slavery, and was not therefore a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.〔http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/reilly-wilson-sec-state-work-pensions.pdf〕 On the other hand, it also ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions had breached its Regulation 4 (which required certain details of the Work Programme to be given to participants in writing).〔http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/reilly-wilson-sec-state-work-pensions-judgment-06082012/.〕
Both parties expressed their wish to appeal the judgement.〔http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/reilly-wilson-rulings-on-costs/〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|