In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy.This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.

中文翻译：

---

司法话语中的应得性。荷兰判例法中关于非正规移民家庭获得庇护的法律推理分析

2012 年 9 月，荷兰最高法院维持了海牙上诉法院的判决，即将在荷兰没有合法居住地的母亲及其未成年子女从基本庇护所驱逐是非法的。这一裁决是由对欧洲社会宪章个人范围的全新解释引发的，并导致荷兰政策发生重大转变。本文提供了上诉法院和最高法院采用的法律推理的案例研究。它争辩说，两个法院都没有依靠法律理论推理来证明结果的正当性，而是参考了公众依赖的因素来评估人们是否应该获得福利。这一发现提出了关于人权法与应得性之间关系的基本问题；并因此呼吁，