Date of the decision: 19 February 2021
Country: Spain
Jurisdiction: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Legal basis: Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Subject: Eviction of claimants from their home - Right to adequate housing
Summary:
Fátima El Ayoubi and Mohamed El Azouan Azouz presented this communication to the Committee on their behalf and on behalf of their young son, Haron El Azouan El Ayoubi, claiming that Spain violated their right to adequate housing under Article 11(1) of the ICESCR by seeking and upholding their eviction when they did not have alternative accommodation.
They were unable to rent a home due to their lack of income. Mr. El Azouan Azouz obtained temporary employment during 2017, but this was unstable income due to the temporary nature of the construction project. Despite multiple efforts to obtain gainful employment, he remained unemployed due to the economic crisis in Spain. Ms. El Ayoubi was unable to work as she was a full-time caregiver for their son, who has a disability.
Due to economic precariety, the authors lived with Mr. El Azouan Azouz’s parents in social housing. However, the entire family was evicted after the government sold the apartment they were living in to an investment fund. As the Committee notes, faced with the “impossibility of obtaining housing on the open market due to high rental prices and the health problems of their son,” the authors saw themselves forced to move into a unit which had been vacant for over ten years. The unit, owned by a bank, was dilapidated, but with the help of family and friends, the authors were able to make it habitable. They moved into the property in 2016.
The authors initially lived with Mr El Azouan Azouz's parents in public housing due to economic instability. Later, they were evicted from the government-owned apartment they were living in, which was sold to an investment fund. Faced with high rental prices and their son's health problems, they moved to a run-down unit owned by a bank in 2016, making it habitable with the help of family and friends.
In 2016, the bank initiated eviction proceedings, alleging illegal occupation. Despite the authors' financial difficulties and their son's health problems, the court granted the eviction in March 2017. An appeal court upheld the eviction in October 2017, and the eviction was initially scheduled for March 2018. Faced with unemployment and financial hardship, the author sought multiple stays of eviction and attempted to negotiate a social rental contract directly with the bank.
In September 2018, the Committee registered the authors' case and requested Spain to postpone the eviction to prevent harm to the authors and their child during the examination of the case. The scheduled eviction date has been repeatedly postponed until January 2021.
The Committee's examination of the case encompassed three main aspects: 1) protection against forced eviction; 2) the State's duty to offer suitable housing alternatives; and 3) requirements for accessing alternative housing and addressing illegal occupation according to the Covenant and Optional Protocol. The Committee reaffirmed the obligation of the State to provide alternative housing based on available resources and emphasized resolving underlying structural housing issues.
A proportionality analysis was utilized by the Committee to assess the eviction, involving considerations such as legality, democratic promotion of the common good, necessity, and balancing societal benefits with individual rights. The absence of such an assessment by local authorities led the Committee to conclude that the State breached its obligations under Article 11(1) of the Covenant.
The State's housing crisis was attributed to broader societal inequalities and housing market speculation, necessitating coordinated responses within resource limits. Specific remedies were outlined for the authors and their children, including reassessment of housing needs, financial compensation, and reimbursement of legal costs.
General recommendations were also provided to prevent future violations. The State should allow individuals facing potential Covenant rights violations due to eviction orders to challenge decisions before an impartial authority, guaranteeing effective remedies. Equal access to social housing should be ensured, ceasing automatic exclusion of applicants in dire need. Consultation with affected individuals, especially vulnerable groups, and ensuring alternative housing access were emphasized. Furthermore, the State was urged to develop a comprehensive plan to uphold the right to adequate housing for low-income individuals, aligned with prior comments and observations.
To read the full case, click here.
English
Jurisdiction:
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Subject:
Evictions
Right to housing
Country:
