E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

GE.25-15660 (E) 071125 071125

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, concerning communication

No. 205/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

Soad el Fandor (represented by Enrique Ruiz

Guerrero)

Alleged victims:

The author and Hamza Chandi, Chandia Chandi

and Kacen Chandi

State Party:

Spain

Date of communication:

2 February 2021 (initial submission)

Date of adoption of decision:

24 September 2025

Subject matter:

Eviction of a family from housing occupied

without legal title

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issue:

Right to adequate housing

Article of the Covenant:

11 (1)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

3 (1) and 5

1.1

The author of the communication is Soad el Fandor, who is of unknown nationality

and was born on 22 December 1977. She submitted the communication on behalf of herself

and her children, Hamza Chandi, born on 1 January 1997, Chandia Chandi, born on

1 February 1998 and Kacem Chandi, born on 5 March 2001, whose nationality is also

unknown. The author claims that the State Party has violated her and her children’s rights

under article 11 (1) of the Covenant because they are subject to an eviction order in respect

of the property they live in and have no alternative housing. The Optional Protocol entered

into force for the State Party on 5 May 2013. The author is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 15 February 2021, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on

Communications, registered the communication and, in accordance with article 5 of the

Optional Protocol, requested the State Party to take measures to avoid possible irreparable

harm to the author and her children by suspending their eviction from the accommodation

they were occupying while the communication was under consideration by the Committee

* Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-eighth session (8–26 September 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Aslan Abashidze, Nadir Adilov, Lazhari Bouzid, Peijie Chen, Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu, Charafat

El Yedri Afailal, Peters Sunday Omologbe Emuze, Santiago Manuel Fiorio Vaesken, Ludovic

Hennebel, Joo-Young Lee, Karla Vanessa Lemus de Vásquez, Seree Nonthasoot, Giuseppe

Palmisano, Laura Elisa Pérez, Julieta Rossi, Preeti Saran and Michael Windfuhr.

United Nations

E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

Economic and Social Council

Distr.: General

29 October 2025

English

Original: Spanish

E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

2

GE.25-15660

or, alternatively, by granting them alternative accommodation, within the framework of

genuine and effective consultation with the author.

A.

Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties

Factual background1

Before registration of the communication

2.1

In 2014, the author and her ex-husband signed in good faith a private contract for the

purchase of a property2 in the amount of €8,000, unaware that the dwelling was public

property of the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency.

2.2

On 27 May 2019, administrative eviction proceedings were initiated against the author

for occupying subsidized public housing without legal title, in accordance with

article 15 (2) (f) of Act No. 13/2005 of 11 November 2005 on subsidized housing and land.3

2.3

By judgment of 27 June 2019, the author’s ex-husband was convicted of violence

against women and domestic violence. The sentence included a ban on coming within

500 metres of the author and her son Hamza for a period of two years.

2.4

On 6 September 2019, the Provincial Director issued a resolution in which she found

that the grounds for eviction had been substantiated and consequently approved eviction from

the dwelling and required the occupants to vacate the property and hand over the keys to the

Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency within 30 days. As part of the processing of

the case, the author was able to raise claims at hearing, where she was assisted by counsel.

On 24 February 2020, the Director General of the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment

Agency issued a resolution dismissing the author’s appeal, thus confirming the eviction

decision. The resolution, which marked the end of administrative remedies, could be

appealed within two months. The author failed to lodge an appeal, so the resolution became

final.

2.5

The Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency requested the family to

voluntarily vacate the property by 6 October 2020. When the request was not complied with,

the Agency set 17 February 2021 as the date for their forced eviction and filed an application

to the Administrative Court for judicial authorization to enter the dwelling.

2.6

Administrative Court No. 2 of Almeria, after finding that the formal and substantive

requirements under the applicable regulations were met, issued an order on 11 December

2020 authorizing the Agency to enter the dwelling. The author filed an appeal against the

order, claiming that the authorization to enter her home was illegitimate, as she was in a

situation of extreme social vulnerability and the authorities had not provided her with

adequate alternative housing. In addition, the author requested a stay of execution of the

eviction, which was denied. On 27 May 2021, the Administrative Chamber of the High Court

of Justice of Andalusia dismissed the appeal of the order, considering that the author’s

approach in the appeal was incorrect because instead of calling into question the fulfilment

of the formal and substantive requirements for authorization to enter the dwelling, she was

attempting to reopen, through the appeal, an examination of the lawfulness of the eviction

resolution, which was final given that it had not been challenged.4

2.7

There is no record that an appeal in cassation has been filed before the Supreme Court

or that a remedy of amparo has been sought before the Constitutional Court.

1 The facts have been reconstructed on the basis of the individual communication and the information

subsequently provided by the parties.

2 The author has not provided a copy of the contract.

3 This article establishes as a cause for eviction “occupying a dwelling or its common areas, rooms or

outbuildings without legal title”.

4 At the same time, on 19 January 2021, the Office of the Ombudsman of Andalusia sent a

communication to the City Council of Almeria and the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment

Agency requesting the suspension of the eviction until the family concerned had alternative housing.

E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

GE.25-15660

3

After registration of the communication

2.8

On 17 February 2021, the scheduled date of the forced eviction, the author’s daughter

voluntarily handed over the keys to the property, rendering the judicial authorization for

forced entry into the dwelling unnecessary. The author claims that she handed over the keys

to avoid any violence and that the family has no stable housing alternative, which is causing

them irreparable harm.

2.9

On 4 February 2022, Administrative Court No. 2 of Almeria ordered the closure of

the case concerning the authorization of entry into the dwelling, noting that the keys had been

handed over on the scheduled day without incident.

2.10

According to the report of the City Council of Almeria of 7 March 2022, in a telephone

conversation with the City Council’s social services, it was stated that the author and her

children were living at the home of relatives and an address in the capital of Almeria was

provided. With regard to the author’s income, she continues to receive an average monthly

salary of 1,000 euros. Two of her children also work, but there is no record of their income.

There is no record that the family has applied for social benefits or, in general, that it has

claimed social assistance. There is also no record that the family has a pending social housing

application. There is, however, evidence of an application for registration in the municipal

subsidized housing registry of the City Council of Almeria, made in July 2018. As indicated

in the application, the period of validity was three years, and there is no record that a new

application has been submitted or that the information in the pending application has been

updated or modified.

Complaint

3.

In her initial submission, the author claimed that the State Party would violate her and

her children’s rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant if they were forcibly evicted on

17 February 2021 without being provided with alternative housing. The author noted that she

had earned €785, €575 and €863 as a seasonal agricultural labourer in the months of

November 2020, December 2020 and January 2021, respectively. Her children, Hamza

Chandi and Chandia Chandi, were both attending university at the time. Her third child,

Kacem Chandi, also worked seasonally as an agricultural labourer and his monthly income

was around €950 in 2020. According to a social services report dated 21 January 2021, the

family was at risk of vulnerability owing to a situation of gender violence and domestic

violence and unstable employment.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

Regarding admissibility, in its observations of 15 March 2022, the State Party argues

that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies before turning to the Committee. First,

the author did not file an administrative appeal against the decision of the Andalusia Housing

and Refurbishment Agency ordering her eviction from the home she was occupying, after

being notified of the decision, and therefore the decision had become final. The author

attempted to correct this omission during the judicial process that the Agency subsequently

initiated to obtain authorization to enter the dwelling for the purpose of enforcing the eviction.

In this process, an attempt was made to have the eviction decision found inadmissible and to

have the eviction of the dwelling’s occupants deemed inappropriate if they were not offered

alternative housing and it was claimed that a situation of “extreme vulnerability” was

involved. However, as rightly explained by the High Court of Justice in ruling on the appeal

against the order of 11 December 2020, it was not the appropriate procedure for putting

forward substantive arguments against the eviction decision, as the purpose of the process to

seek authorization for entry is essentially limited to confirming that a final administrative

decision exists.

4.2

The judicial remedy against the eviction decision was a perfectly accessible and

effective means for the author to challenge the legitimacy of the eviction. Moreover, no

explanation was provided in the submission as to what might have prevented or hindered the

author from challenging the decision or might have rendered the judicial remedy ineffective

in her case.

E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

4

GE.25-15660

4.3

Secondly, domestic remedies in relation to the judicial authorization to enter the

dwelling, contained in the order of 11 December 2020, have not been exhausted. The order

itself notes the possibility of lodging an appeal in cassation. There is also no record of any

remedy of amparo having been sought before the Constitutional Court.

4.4

With regard to the merits, the State Party argues that the authorities at the central,

autonomous community and local levels have not violated article 11 (1) of the Covenant, in

particular as there is no evidence that the author’s family is in a situation of social exclusion

that prevents it from accessing the private housing market. In fact, from the moment the

family was evicted from the dwelling it had occupied without title and the keys were handed

over to the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency, the family has lived in alternative

housing procured through its own resources. Social services have been following up with the

family since at least 2019, to the extent possible given that the information provided by the

family informally and only verbally, in particular during social services’ last intervention,

has been incomplete and unspecific. In any event, this information does not indicate a

situation of social exclusion or an inability to cover expenses stemming from their need for

housing. Moreover, there is no record that the family has applied for public housing and is

awaiting the processing of their application, apart from the application made in 2018, which

appears not to have been renewed.

Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.

In her comments of 29 August 2022, the author considers that the State Party’s claims

do not undermine the complaint. She takes the view that the claims are completely

inappropriate, as they aim to create confusion by exploiting the current situation and ignoring

the rights violation that occurred when the family was evicted without alternative housing.

As described in the social services report issued by the City Council of Almeria, the family

is in a situation of social vulnerability owing to a lack of alternative housing, scarce financial

resources and a member who is a victim of gender-based violence. The author attaches a

letter from the head of the municipal subsidized housing registry, dated 10 February 2021,

according to which an exception to the obligation for subsidized housing to be allocated to

the author through the registry cannot be made until social services issue a report confirming

that the family is at risk of social exclusion and their situation is urgent. According to the

letter, the social services report dated 21 January 2021 does not reflect the situation of social

exclusion or the urgency of the situation.

B.

Committee’s consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol,

whether the communication is admissible.

6.2

The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the author has not exhausted all

available domestic remedies, as she did not file an administrative appeal against the

resolution of 24 February 2020 of the Director General of the Andalusia Housing and

Refurbishment Agency, dismissing the appeal against the eviction decision of 6 September

2019. The Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Optional

Protocol, “domestic remedies” are all remedies available in direct relation to the events that

initially gave rise to the alleged violation and that, prima facie, may be reasonably considered

effective means of remedying the alleged violations of the Covenant.5 The Committee notes

that the principal complaint put forward by the author in her communication is that evicting

her family would be a violation of the Covenant owing to the absence of alternative housing.

Therefore, the remedies that must be exhausted are, first and foremost, those directly related

to the eviction, such as remedies aimed at preventing or delaying the eviction or serving to

notify the courts of the lack of alternative housing.6 In this regard, the Committee notes that

the author subsequently appealed the order of 11 December 2020 of Administrative Court

5 Hernández Cortés et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/72/D/26/2018), para. 6.2; and Moreno Romero et al. v.

Spain (E/C.12/69/D/48/2018), para. 8.2.

6 Moreno Romero et al. v. Spain, para. 8.2.

E/C.12/78/D/205/2021

GE.25-15660

5

No. 2 of Almeria concerning the authorization to enter the dwelling for the purpose of

enforcing the eviction. However, the Committee notes that the High Court of Justice found

that this was not the appropriate procedure to put forward substantive arguments against the

eviction decision, as the purpose of the process to seek authorization for entry was essentially

limited to confirming that a final administrative decision on eviction had been issued.

6.3

The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information or

documentation explaining why she did not lodge an administrative appeal against the

resolution of 24 February 2020. In particular, the author has not provided explanations as to

why this remedy was not available or effective in the specific circumstances of her case. The

Committee considers that this would have been an effective remedy aimed at avoiding the

eviction measure. In the absence of any information from the author to refute the State Party’s

argument concerning the failure to exhaust all remedies, it therefore concludes that the

communication is inadmissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

C.

Conclusion

7.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the

State Party.