Decision on merits; Subjects: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, SPAIN; [CESCR: UNO-Pakt I, Internationaler Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-15661 (E) 041225 051225
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, concerning communication
No. 225/2021*, **
Communication submitted by:
Olga Saguer Sais (represented by counsel, Carlos
Alberto Alonso Espinosa)
Alleged victims:
The author and Jan Dorian Gatjens Saguer
State Party:
Spain
Date of communication:
3 September 2021 (initial submission)
Date of adoption of Views:
24 September 2025
Subject matter:
Eviction of a family for non-payment of rent
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 Olga Saguer Sais, a national of Spain born on
20 April 1968. She is submitting the communication on behalf of herself and her son, Jan
Dorian Gatjens Saguer, who was born on 15 January 2002. The author claims to be the victim
of a violation of her rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, because she is facing eviction
from the property she lives in with her son and has 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 10 September 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
damage to the author and her son by suspending their eviction from the property they were
occupying while the communication was under consideration by the Committee or,
alternatively, by granting them alternative accommodation, following genuine and effective
consultation with the author.
* Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-eighth session (8–26 September 2025).
** The following members of the Committee took part 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/225/2021
Economic and Social Council
Distr.: General
30 October 2025
English
Original: Spanish
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
2
GE.25-15661
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Facts as submitted by the author1
Before registration of the communication
2.1
After signing a lease with the landlord on 16 March 2017, the author began residing
with her son, who is recognized as having a degree of disability of 54 per cent because he
has Asperger’s syndrome, on commercial premises fitted out for housing.
2.2
In February 2020, the author stopped paying rent on the property.
2.3
On 20 May 2020, the owner sued the author for non-payment before the Barcelona
Court of First Instance No. 29. The author applied for free legal aid and, on 20 June 2020,
she was assigned both a lawyer and a court-appointed legal representative. On 13 July 2020,
the author’s legal counsel filed a formal objection to the lawsuit. On 24 July 2020, the trial
took place. Both parties appeared, but no agreement was reached.
2.4
The Court upheld the claim in judgment No. 136/2020 of 27 July 2020, finding that
the non-payment of rent by the author had been demonstrated. This decision could have been
appealed before the Barcelona Provincial Court, but the author did not appeal it. The author
explains that she could not appeal the judgment because she was unable to pay the amount
of rent due.
2.5
The date of eviction was initially set for 9 October 2020, by means of an order dated
23 September 2020.2
2.6
Following the suspension of the first eviction, a new date for its execution was set for
15 February 2021, but it too was postponed.
2.7
By order of 11 February 2021, the Court ruled that Royal Decree-Law No. 11/2020
of 31 March 2020, on the adoption of additional urgent social and economic measures to
address the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic could not be used as a legal basis for
the suspension of the proceedings, since the property concerned was commercial premises
and not a dwelling. The eviction date was therefore maintained. The author filed an appeal
against this order, but it was deemed inadmissible on 3 March 2021 because it did not comply
with the relevant legal requirements.3
2.8
On 5 May 2021, the author requested a stay of proceedings under Royal Decree-Law
No. 37/20204 of 22 December 2020; this request was rejected on 15 June 2021, on the basis
that an application for reconsideration by the enforcing party had been upheld.
2.9
The third eviction date was set for 20 May 2021, but it was again suspended, and a
new eviction date of 17 September 2021 was established.5 On an unspecified date, the author
again requested that her eviction be postponed.
After registration of the communication
2.10
By order of 15 September 2021, the eviction date of 17 September 2021 was
maintained. The author applied for the reconsideration of this decision, but her application
was dismissed by order of 20 October 2021.
2.11
The eviction scheduled for 17 September 2021 was executed. The social services of
the Barcelona City Council arranged the transfer and storage of the family’s belongings and
proposed temporary accommodation in a hostel. The author reports that she was offered
1 The facts have been reconstructed on the basis of the individual communication and the information
subsequently provided by the parties.
2 There is no record in the case file that the author submitted a motion for the reconsideration of this
court decision.
3 There is no record in the file that the author attempted to appeal the decision of inadmissibility.
4 Royal Decree-Law No. 37/2020 of 22 December 2020, on urgent measures to address situations of
social and economic vulnerability in the housing and transport sectors.
5 Neither of the court decisions establishing these two eviction dates were challenged by the author
(writs of 12 April 2021 and 1 July 2021, respectively).
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
GE.25-15661
3
short-term housing for two months in a university residence, and that she and her son would
have had to share the accommodation and would not have had their own bathroom.
2.12
The social services have been following up with the family since 2018. They have
proposed a plan aimed at covering the author’s basic needs such as food, job orientation and
economic benefits, in addition to providing support for her son.
2.13
The author is currently living with her son in a dwelling without legal title.
Complaint
3.
In her initial submission, the author claimed that the State Party would violate her and
her son’s rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant if they were forcibly evicted without
being provided with alternative housing. The author maintained that the execution of the
forced eviction would violate her rights and those of her son, who has a disability. Her son’s
rights to a home and to the protection of his most basic needs, including basic supplies,
healthcare and schooling, would be affected. The author also claimed that she did not have
the option of being housed by relatives or other people and that she did not have the financial
or material means to find housing on the rental market. The author’s income, which she has
been receiving under a guaranteed minimum income scheme6 since 19 May 2020, amounts
to a total of €780.87 per month. This is her only income, as her son’s father did not provide
child support. The author stated that she had not been able to apply for subsidized housing
because she was living on commercial premises, and the criteria imposed by the municipal
administration made it impossible for social services to offer alternative housing in such a
situation. The author provided a vulnerability report prepared by the municipal social services
indicating her situation of social vulnerability and housing exclusion.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 10 May 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and
merits of the communication.
4.2
The State Party notes that the Committee’s request for the adoption of interim
measures was forwarded to the judicial authority on the same day it was received. This
judicial authority has been assessing the family’s situation of vulnerability throughout the
proceedings and has informed the social services of each scheduled eviction. The State Party
therefore considers that the interim measures initially requested in the communication have
lost their purpose and are no longer justified.
4.3
Regarding admissibility, the State Party argues that the author did not exhaust
domestic remedies before appealing to the Committee. The author submitted the
communication before the eviction effectively took place and, therefore, before the legal
proceedings had been concluded. In addition, following the submission of a communication
to the Committee, the author applied for the reconsideration of the order of 15 September
2021 denying the suspension of the eviction. However, the author also had the opportunity
to challenge other court decisions in the course of the proceedings, but there is no record that
she did so. The orders dated 23 September 2020, 10 November 2020 and 1 July 2021 were
not appealed even though there was an opportunity to do so. The State Party notes that the
author states in the communication that she has not been able to apply for subsidized housing
as she is living on commercial premises. However, the State Party points out that, since her
eviction on 17 September 2021, she has been occupying a new dwelling, and there is no
record of her applying for any public housing from the competent authorities.
4.4
The State Party notes that the right to housing recognized in the Covenant is not an
enforceable right but a mandate that requires States to take appropriate measures to promote
public policies whose aim is to improve access to decent housing.7 In the present case, the
State Party argues that the State, autonomous and local authorities have not violated article
11 (1) of the Covenant. The eviction was suspended three times. When the eviction was
6 Minimum income provided for in Catalonia under Act No. 14/2017 of July 20, on the guaranteed
minimum income scheme.
7 For further details, see El Korrichi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/76/D/188/2020), para. 4.5.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
4
GE.25-15661
effectively carried out, the Barcelona City Council arranged storage services for the author
and a temporary housing solution for the family until the author decided to move to a new
property. The social services have been notified by the Court and have painstakingly followed
up on the situation of the author and her son, making all available resources available to them.
With regard to the author, the State Party argues that, consistent with the information
provided in the factual background, she has been notified of all the legal proceedings and
appeared in court once she was granted free legal aid. The author is currently occupying a
dwelling despite the offer of temporary housing made by the social services of the Barcelona
City Council. The State Party indicates that the authorities have made every effort to assist
the author and her son, both socially and in terms of finding alternative housing suitable to
their needs. The State Party concludes that the communication is manifestly without merit,
since the author’s situation and her own actions prove that she has not been deprived of any
right under the Covenant.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
In her comments of 25 July 2022, the author claims that she was evicted by the
authorities using anti-riot equipment, on 17 September 2021, in disregard of the Committee’s
request for the granting of interim measures.
5.2
The author states that she is currently being given temporary accommodation by some
neighbours. She states that she is awaiting a response regarding a disability application that
she submitted owing to her state of health.
5.3
The author alleges that the eviction was carried out in bad faith by the municipal social
services, which had issued a report to the courts stating that they had no alternative for the
family, yet they then appeared at the eviction offering two months of temporary
accommodation in a university residence. The offer of this alternative, which lacks any hint
of dignity, given the family’s health circumstances, was interpreted by the Court as the
existence of a housing alternative. This then allowed for the eviction to be effectively carried
out, using anti-riot equipment that also penalized the people who had shown solidarity with
the family’s 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 or not the communication is admissible.
6.2
The Committee notes the State Party’s claim that the author has not exhausted all
available domestic remedies, as she submitted her communication prior to the execution of
the eviction and did not challenge the eviction orders issued on 23 September 2020,
10 November 2020 and 1 July 2021. 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.8 The Committee notes that the principal complaint put forward by the author in
her communication is that the eviction of 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.9 In this regard, the Committee notes that, as it appears from the case file, the author
requested the suspension of the eviction orders on at least two occasions, and that these
requests were rejected. It further notes that the author also filed an appeal for the
reconsideration of the order setting the date of eviction as 17 September 2021 – an appeal
that was rejected by order of 20 October 2021, more than a month after the execution of the
8 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.
9 Moreno Romero et al. v. Spain, para. 8.2.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
GE.25-15661
5
eviction, as it did not have suspensive effect. The Committee considers that appeals for the
reconsideration of other orders would not have been effective because they also would have
lacked suspensive effect. Similarly, the Committee notes that the communication was
submitted after the author had been served a number of eviction orders, and that its
submission after the execution of the eviction would have led to the materialization of the
violations alleged before the Committee. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee
considers that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the
admissibility of the present communication.
6.3
The Committee also notes the State Party’s argument concerning the non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies that the author did not apply for public housing after her eviction. In
this regard, the Committee takes note of the information, which was not refuted by the State
Party, that because the author was occupying commercial premises, the law did not allow the
author to apply for public housing. The Committee considers that the alleged violation had
already taken place once the eviction had happened, and it is therefore outside the scope of
the present communication. The Committee therefore cannot conclude that the author has not
exercised due diligence in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to find
alternative housing and, consequently, article 3 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute
an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication.
6.4
The Committee notes that the communication meets the other admissibility
requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and, accordingly, declares the
communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits.
C.
Committee’s consideration of the merits
Facts and legal issues
7.1
The Committee has considered the present communication taking into account all the
information provided to it in accordance with article 8 of the Optional Protocol.
7.2
In the light of the relevant facts and the parties’ submissions, the Committee considers
that the question that the communication raises and that it must resolve is whether the State
Party has taken all reasonable steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure the
realization of the right of the author and her son to adequate housing, enshrined in
article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To this end, the Committee will first examine whether the
eviction process and the enforcement of the decision in respect of the author and her son
respected the safeguards established by the Covenant. The Committee will then determine
whether the State Party complied with its duty to provide persons in vulnerable situations
with alternative housing or, failing that, whether it took other measures to the maximum of
its available resources.
7.3
In order to answer this question, the Committee will first refer to the standards relating
to protection against forced evictions in the context of the right to adequate housing, as
consolidated in its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain,10 including the requirement
for an eviction to respect the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, and the duty
of the judge to weigh up the relevant rights in reviewing any eviction decision. In El Korrichi
et al. v. Spain, the Committee also sets out a number of procedural safeguards that should be
respected in eviction procedures, including the provision of an opportunity for genuine
consultation on alternative accommodation with affected persons and, if a lack of resources
means that there are no viable alternatives, requiring the administrative authorities to present
the available options with a view to ensuring that the eviction will not leave anyone
homeless.11
10 El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, paras. 8.1–8.10.
11 Ibid., para. 8.6.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
6
GE.25-15661
Proportionality test, the weighing of rights in the eviction, consultation with the author and
disproportionate impacts
7.4
The Committee will proceed to determine whether the authorities considered the
proportionality of the objective of the eviction to its consequences for the persons evicted,
including by weighing the benefits of the measure – in this case, protecting the right to
property of the owner of the premises – against its possible consequences for the rights of the
evicted persons12 in the specific circumstances of the case.
7.5
The Committee refers to its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, in which
it set out a series of circumstances that must be assessed when analysing the proportionality
of an eviction, including: (a) the availability of adequate alternative housing; (b) the personal
circumstances of the occupants and their dependants and how these circumstances may lead
to one or several situations of vulnerability; (c) the cooperation of the occupants with the
authorities in seeking suitable solutions; and (d) the distinction between properties belonging
to individuals who need them as a home or source of income and properties belonging to
banks, financial institutions or other entities.13
7.6
In the present case, the Committee notes that the author informed the Court of her
situation of vulnerability and inability to pay the amounts claimed. The Committee notes that
the eviction order contained in the judgment of 27 July 2020 was issued without an analysis
of the impact of the eviction on the author and her son, taking into account the family’s
vulnerable circumstances and the absence of alternative housing, as reflected in the report of
the social services. In the light of the specific circumstances of the present case, the
Committee considers that proper consideration of the proportionality of the eviction would
have taken into account the author’s socioeconomic vulnerability; the author’s son’s degree
of disability of 54 per cent; the particular effects of the eviction on the author as an
unemployed female head of household responsible for a child with a disability, without the
wherewithal for adequate housing or other viable alternatives; the benefits of the measure at
the time, in this case, the protection of the right to property of the person owning the premises;
the author’s inability to apply for social housing because she was occupying commercial
premises; the lack of availability of social housing from the relevant administrative
authorities; and the existence of alternative means of resolving the problem.
7.7
Based on the foregoing, the Committee notes that it does not appear from the judgment
of the Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 29 that the author’s son’s degree of disability of
54 per cent was taken into account when the eviction was ordered. In this regard, there is no
evidence that the court in question undertook a specific analysis of how an eviction could
affect the author’s son or what would be the best decision for him.
7.8
The Committee notes that the Court also failed to take into account the author’s
particular situation, insofar as she is a single mother and head of household, caring for a son
with a disability, and the disproportionate impact that the eviction would have on her, given
the discrimination that women can face, the lack of equal opportunities for access to adequate
housing and employment, and the share, larger than that of men, of the caregiving burden
that they bear.14
7.9
In order to assess the author’s situation, the Court should have made arrangements for
genuine and effective consultation with her and should have requested the administrative
authorities to provide information on any social housing available and on her socioeconomic
situation. The Committee notes that the author filed several requests for the suspension of the
eviction before the competent judicial authorities, alleging a situation of particular
vulnerability. However, despite the various requests for a stay of eviction and the appeals
filed by the author, the Committee considers that there has been no evidence that any genuine
and effective judicial consultation took place with a view to studying alternatives to eviction.
12 López Albán et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/37/2018), para. 11.5.
13 El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, para. 10.2; and El Mourabit Ouazizi et al. v. Spain
(E/C.12/72/D/133/2019).
14 Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain, para. 12.3.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
GE.25-15661
7
Duty of States to provide alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to
the maximum of available resources
7.10
The Committee recalls the standards relating to the duty of States to provide
alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to the maximum of available
resources. It also recalls that all alternative housing must be adequate, including with regard
to security of tenure. Nevertheless, States Parties may be able demonstrate that, despite
having made every effort, to the maximum of available resources, it has been impossible to
offer permanent alternative housing to an evicted person in need of alternative housing, in
which case use may be made of temporary emergency housing that does not meet all the
requirements of adequate alternative housing. However, States Parties must endeavour to
ensure that the temporary accommodation protects the human dignity of the persons evicted,
meets all safety and security requirements and does not become a permanent solution, but is
rather a step towards obtaining adequate housing. It must also take account of the right of
members of a family not to be separated15 and to enjoy a reasonable level of privacy.16
7.11
In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party did not provide the author
and her son with alternative housing, since, according to the author’s claims, which have not
been refuted by the State Party, the regulations in force made it impossible for occupants of
premises to apply for public housing. The Committee notes that they were offered alternative
accommodation for two months, which, according to the author’s claims, which were not
refuted by the State Party, did not meet the minimum requirements of dignity, as they would
have had to share a room and a bathroom.
7.12
The Committee also recalls that States Parties may be able demonstrate that, despite
not having been able to directly provide alternative housing to evicted persons, they have
taken measures, to the maximum of their available resources, to provide social assistance to
such persons in order to promote their social reintegration and facilitate their access to
adequate housing. In this regard, the Committee notes in particular the financial assistance
received by the author since 19 May 2020, under the guaranteed minimum income scheme,
of €780.87 per month. However, while acknowledging the importance of the social assistance
measures taken to support the author and her son as people in socially vulnerable situations,
the Committee considers that the State Party has not provided information demonstrating
how this assistance constituted measures, to the maximum of its available resources, intended
to, inter alia, facilitate the author’s access to adequate housing.
7.13
In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the State Party has not
demonstrated that it has made every possible effort, using all available resources, to realize,
as a matter of urgency, the right to housing of the author and her son, who has a disability,
both of whom were in a situation of dire vulnerability.
Interim measures and eviction of the author and her son
8.1
On 10 September 2021, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of
the Committee, requested the State Party to suspend the eviction of the author and her son
while the communication was being considered or, alternatively, to grant them adequate
housing following genuine and effective consultation with the author.
8.2
The Committee notes that, according to its jurisprudence,17 the adoption of interim
measures pursuant to article 5 of the Optional Protocol is vital to the Committee’s fulfilment
of the responsibility entrusted to it under the Optional Protocol, 18 as the reason for the
existence of interim measures is, inter alia, to preserve the integrity of the process, thereby
ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanism for protecting Covenant rights when there is a
risk of irreparable damage.19 It also recalls that, as established in its guidelines on interim
15 López Albán et al. v. Spain, paras. 9.1–9.4.
16 El Goumari v. Spain (E/C.12/69/D/85/2018), para. 9.4.
17 S.S.R. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/51/2018), paras. 7.6 and 7.7.
18 Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1.
19 See, mutatis mutandis, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Mamatkulov and Askarov
v. Turkey (applications No. 46827/99 and No. 46951/99), judgment of 4 February 2005, para. 128;
and Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 6.1.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
8
GE.25-15661
measures, any State Party that does not respect the interim measures requested by the
Committee is in breach of its obligation to respect in good faith the individual
communications procedure established in the Optional Protocol, since failure to respect the
interim measures makes it difficult for any future Views to reverse the harm caused to the
victims.20
8.3
The Committee notes that, on 17 September 2021, the author and her son were evicted
despite the Committee’s having requested the State Party to adopt interim measures and
without having been granted adequate alternative housing following genuine consultation
with her.
8.4
In the absence of any explanation by the State Party for its failure to honour the request
for interim measures, the Committee finds that the State Party is in breach of article 5 of the
Optional Protocol.
D.
Conclusion
9.1
On the basis of all the information provided and in the particular circumstances of the
case, the Committee finds that the eviction of the author and her son without a proper
assessment of proportionality by the judicial authorities, including consideration of the
disproportionate impact that the eviction could have on the author and her son, who has a
disability, and without a guarantee, as part of the procedure, of adequate consultation,
together with the lack of alternative housing and the State Party’s failure to provide evidence
that it had taken all appropriate measures to the maximum of its resources, constituted a
violation of the right to adequate housing, under the terms of the Covenant, in respect of the
author and her son.
9.2
The Committee, acting under article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that
the State Party has incurred international responsibility for violating the right of the author
and her son under article 11 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee also finds that the State
Party violated article 5 of the Optional Protocol. Consequently, the State Party has an
obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with this decision.
10.
The State Party has an obligation to provide the author and her son with an effective
remedy, in particular by: (a) reassessing their needs, if they are not currently in adequate
housing, with a view to providing them with public housing or taking another measure that
would enable them to live in adequate housing, bearing in mind the criteria set out in the
present Views; (b) awarding the author financial compensation for the violations of their
rights; and (c) reimbursing the author for the legal costs reasonably incurred in submitting
the present communication, at both the domestic and international levels.
11.
The Committee recalls that, in conformity with the State Party’s international
obligations, the State Party should take all steps necessary to guarantee the non-repetition of
similar violations in the future. The State Party is therefore obliged to ensure that its
legislation and the enforcement thereof are consistent with the international standards set out
in the Covenant. In particular, the State Party should:
(a)
Ensure that its normative framework allows persons in respect of whom an
eviction order is issued and who might consequently be at risk of destitution or of violation
of their Covenant rights, including persons who are occupying a dwelling without legal title,
to challenge the decision before a judicial or other impartial and independent authority with
the power to order the cessation of the violation and to provide an effective remedy so that
such authorities can examine the proportionality of the measure; and to consider, where
appropriate, the best interests of the child and the disproportionate impact of evictions on
women, especially women who are heads of households with minor children or those who
provide care to family members in a situation of dependency, and whose financial situation
is unstable;
20 See the Committee’s guidelines on interim measures, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-
bodies/cescr/inquiry-procedure.
E/C.12/78/D/225/2021
GE.25-15661
9
(b)
Take the necessary measures to ensure that evictions affecting persons who
lack the wherewithal to obtain alternative housing take place only within the framework of
proceedings involving genuine and effective consultation with the persons concerned in
which available alternative housing (whether belonging to the State or made available by the
relevant State agencies, including those consulted during judicial proceedings) is assessed
and only after the State Party has taken all essential steps, to the maximum of its available
resources, to ensure that evicted persons can gain access to alternative housing, especially in
cases involving families, households headed by single parents – women in particular – older
persons, children, persons with disabilities or other persons in vulnerable situations. If the
group to be evicted includes children, the proceedings must guarantee their right to be heard;
(c)
To adopt the necessary measures to put an end to the practice of automatically
excluding from lists of applicants for housing all persons who find themselves occupying a
property illegally, because they are in a situation of necessity, so that all such persons have
equal access to the social housing stock, eliminating any unreasonable condition that might
exclude persons at risk of destitution;
(d)
Take the necessary measures to resolve the lack of coordination between court
decisions, adopted in proceedings of any kind, and the actions of social service providers,
which that can result in an evicted person’s being left without adequate accommodation;
(e)
Develop and implement, in coordination with the autonomous communities
and to the maximum of its available resources, a comprehensive plan to guarantee the right
to adequate housing for low-income persons, in keeping with the Committee’s general
comment No. 4 (1991). This plan should provide for the necessary resources, measures, time
frames and evaluation criteria to guarantee these individuals’ right to housing in a reasonable,
timely and measurable manner;
(f)
Establish a protocol for complying with requests for interim measures made
by the Committee and inform all relevant authorities of the need to grant such requests in
order to ensure the integrity of the procedure;
(g)
Establish follow-up mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of reparation
measures and to prevent the recurrence of similar situations.
12.
In accordance with article 9 (2) of the Optional Protocol and rule 21 (1) of the rules
of procedure under the Optional Protocol, the State Party is requested to submit to the
Committee, within a period of six months, a written response, including information on the
measures taken in follow-up to the Views and recommendations of the Committee. The State
Party is also requested to publish the Views of the Committee and to distribute them widely,
in an accessible format, so that they reach all sectors of the population.