Inadmissibility decision; Subjects: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, ITALY; [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.26-03807 (E) 170426 170426
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. 265/2022*, **, ***
Communication submitted by:
Girolama Tabbita (represented by counsel,
Emanuela Isopo, of Unione Inquilini)
Alleged victims:
The author and Giuliana Riggio
State Party:
Italy
Date of communication:
24 March 2022 (initial submission)
Date of adoption of decision:
13 February 2026
Subject matter:
Eviction of a family without the provision of
alternative housing
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Substantive issue:
Right to adequate housing
Articles of the Covenant:
2, 11 (1) and 12
Articles of the Optional Protocol:
2, 3, 5 and 8
1.1
The author of the communication is Girolama Tabbita, a national of Italy, born on
25 January 1938. She is acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, Giuliana
Riggio, born on 20 December 1962. The author claims that the State Party has violated their
rights under articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant because she and her daughter are subject to
an eviction order in respect of the property in which they live and have no alternative housing.
The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 20 May 2015. The author is
represented by counsel.
1.2
On 5 April 2022, 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 daughter by suspending their eviction from the property that they
* Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-ninth session (9–25 February 2026).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Aslan Abashidze, Nadir Adilov, Lazhari Bouzid, Asraf Ally Caunhye, 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, Laura Elisa Pérez, Julieta Rossi, Preeti Saran and Michael Windfuhr. In accordance with
rule 23 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, Giuseppe Palmisano did not take part in
the consideration of the communication.
*** An individual opinion by Committee member Julieta Rossi (dissenting) is annexed to the present
decision.
United Nations
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
Economic and Social Council
Distr.: General
14 April 2026
Original: English
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
2
GE.26-03807
occupied while the communication was being considered by the Committee or, alternatively,
by granting them alternative accommodation on grounds of special need, following genuine
and effective consultation with them.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Factual background1
Before registration of the communication
2.1
On 18 January 2018, the author entered into a three-year lease agreement with a
monthly rent of €671.39. The author is a person with a severe disability2 and is unable to
perform essential daily activities independently. She lived in the apartment with her daughter,
who provided her with daily care and assistance. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the author’s daughter lost her employment and has since
remained unemployed. As a result of this deterioration in the household’s economic situation,
from 2020, the author was no longer able to meet the rental payments. The author’s annual
income amounts to €7,869.00, derived exclusively from her social pension. The annual
income of her daughter amounts to €2,144.80.
2.2
On 20 May 2020, the owner of the apartment filed a request to evict the author and
her daughter. By decision of 28 September 2020, the Ordinary Court of Rome (civil section)
upheld the request, ordered the eviction, and scheduled its enforcement for 1 January 2021.
The enforcement of the eviction was suspended until 31 December 2021 pursuant to
emergency measures adopted by the Government of Italy in response to the COVID-19
public health crisis.3 Upon the expiration of these measures, the eviction order became
enforceable once again. Accordingly, enforcement proceedings resumed, and the author was
notified that the eviction would be carried out on 18 January 2022.
2.3
On 30 November 2021, the author’s daughter attempted to reach an amicable
settlement and wrote to the property owner explaining her personal circumstances, including
that her husband had been admitted to a psychiatric facility and that her mother was in a
particularly precarious state of health. As the family was not legally represented at the time,
she proposed paying €500 per month and making an immediate payment of €3,000 to be
deducted from the outstanding debt. These efforts were unsuccessful.
2.4
On 15 March 2022, the bailiff set 13 April 2022 as the new date for the enforcement
of the eviction, to be carried out with the assistance of the police. In November 2021, the
author’s daughter had requested a medical certificate attesting that the author required
ongoing assistance and that relocating her to another dwelling could pose a significant risk
to her health. On 21 March 2022, the author applied for social housing with the municipality
of Rome. According to the information provided, the only solution proposed by the public
authorities was to separate the family by placing the author in a long-term care facility,
without offering any alternative housing to the author’s daughter.
1 These facts have been reconstructed on the basis of the individual communication and the information
subsequently provided by the parties in their observations and comments on the merits of the
communication.
2 According to the medical commission responsible for disability assessments, since 13 October 2015,
the author has been recognized as having a 100 per cent disability due to persistent difficulties in
carrying out tasks essential to her daily life. The author was diagnosed with cognitive deterioration,
multifactorial encephalopathy, and diabetes mellitus, along with the after-effects of a left-knee
arthroplasty and gonarthrosis in the right knee. Her condition is further complicated by dysphagia and
the loosening of previously implanted orthopaedic devices, affecting their stability.
3 Decree-Law No. 183 of 31 December 2020, which was passed into law, with amendments, by Law
No. 21 of 26 February 2021.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
GE.26-03807
3
2.5
The author acknowledges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. She
explains that she did not challenge or appeal the eviction order, as the applicable Italian
legislation allows landlords to request a court order for eviction in cases of rent arrears,
without imposing any corresponding obligation on the authorities to safeguard the tenant’s
right to adequate housing or to prevent repeated displacement from one temporary
accommodation option to another.
2.6
The author further submits that lodging an opposition would not have postponed the
eviction, as domestic law permits the judge to issue an eviction order prior to delivering the
final judgment. Any such opposition would likely have resulted in an order requiring her to
bear the opposing party’s legal costs in the event that she was unsuccessful. The same would
have been true of filing an appeal, which would not have been an effective remedy, given
that the eviction order would have remained enforceable pending the appellate decision. The
author also notes that Italian legislation does not provide for the suspension of enforcement
in circumstances such as hers and her daughter’s, where the household includes a person with
a disability and is eligible for public housing.
2.7
The author explains that the only potential avenue to seek a suspension of the eviction
would have been to apply to the enforcement judge, requesting that the matter be referred to
the Constitutional Court. Such a referral would involve asking the Court to determine whether
a family entitled to public housing may nonetheless be evicted or whether, alternatively, the
eviction should be suspended until the allocation of suitable public housing. The author notes,
however, that this mechanism is discretionary, exceptional in nature and does not constitute
an effective remedy capable of preventing the eviction in practice.
After registration of the communication
2.8
Following the request for interim measures, the author submitted an application for
suspension of the eviction to the municipality of Rome and the Ordinary Court of Rome. The
Court initially granted the suspension and scheduled a hearing for 21 September 2022.
However, at that hearing, the Court revoked the suspension, reasoning that the authorities
were required to enforce regulations that carried binding legal force and could not attribute
such force to non-binding recommendations. Following this decision, the bailiff proceeded
to schedule the enforcement of the eviction.
2.9
On 8 November 2022, the author and her counsel were summoned to the housing
policy department of the municipality of Rome for an interview with a social worker. During
this meeting, the authorities acknowledged the need to secure adequate alternative housing
for the family before the eviction. As no follow-up was provided, on 12 December 2022, the
author submitted a written communication to the Mayor of Rome requesting either the
suspension of the eviction or the provision of suitable alternative accommodation.
2.10
On 14 December 2022, the bailiff, accompanied by a doctor, a locksmith and the
property owner, and assisted by the police, ordered the author to vacate the premises. The
author presented a medical certificate attesting to her fragile health condition. However, the
doctor, in agreement with the bailiff, deemed her “transportable”, and the eviction was carried
out. The author subsequently obtained precarious and temporary shelter with family friends,
who were unable to accommodate her daughter. The daughter was therefore compelled to
sleep in her car.
Complaint
3.1
At the time of submitting the communication, the author alleged that the State Party
would violate her and her daughter’s rights under articles 11 (1) and 12 of the Covenant were
it to allow the eviction scheduled for 13 April 2022 to proceed without taking all appropriate
measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that the family was not
rendered destitute. She further contended that the social services team of the municipality of
Rome had consistently failed to provide any adequate or effective response to their precarious
situation.
3.2
The author submitted that national legislation allowed the execution of evictions
without ensuring access to adequate alternative housing for individuals and families who
were unable to secure such housing on their own, a situation compounded in her case by the
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
4
GE.26-03807
complete absence of any response or assistance from the municipality of Rome. The author
recalled that the state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic remained in force
throughout Italy and that local authorities bore primary responsibility for protecting public
health. Pursuant to Law No. 833 of 23 December 1978, all mayors, including the Mayor of
Rome, were required to adopt all measures necessary to protect the health of residents. In
such circumstances, the municipality could have issued contingent and urgent ordinances –
such as temporary requisition measures – to guarantee a home-to-home transfer for the author
and her daughter if public housing was not immediately available. The enforcement of the
eviction order against the author and her daughter, without any provision for relocation
despite their situation, their eligibility for social housing at a controlled rent, and the fact that
one family member had a 100 per cent disability, constituted a serious breach of those
obligations and of the domestic legislation intended to protect vulnerable households.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 6 June 2022 and 5 October 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on the
admissibility and merits of the communication.
4.2
The State Party noted that the Constitutional Court dealt only with infringements of
the 1948 Constitution and could act either ex officio, through a prosecutor, or upon request
from the plaintiff or defendant. When the Court considered that an act was unconstitutional,
such evaluation led to a suspension of the a quo proceeding. Pursuant to article 134 of the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court decided on disputes concerning: (a) the
constitutionality of laws and acts with the force of law adopted by the State or the regions;
(b) the allocation of powers among branches of government, within the State, between the
State and the regions and among the regions; and (c) charges brought against the Head of
State in accordance with the Constitution. More generally, the Constitutional Court
determined the validity of legislation, its interpretation and whether its implementation, in
both form and substance, was consistent with the Constitution. When the Court declared a
law or an act with the force of law to be unconstitutional, the norm lost force the day after
the publication of the decision.
4.3
According to the State Party, none of the circumstances described by the author were
applicable in the present case. It asserted that the authorities offered the author
accommodation in a long-term care facility and claimed that her daughter did not reside in
the apartment concerned. As indicated by the author herself, she had not appeared at the
relevant court hearing. In addition, the State party submitted that domestic remedies were
still pending, noting that opposition proceedings against the eviction had been initiated, with
a hearing scheduled for 21 September 2022, and that enforcement of the eviction order had
been suspended pending the outcome of those proceedings.
4.4
The State Party contended that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies,
noting that remedies must be available, effective, and sufficient or adequate. The rule
regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies became relevant when such remedies
were unavailable, when they lacked effectiveness or adequacy, or when there was a denial of
justice or the remedies that applied were discretionary.
4.5
Concerning the merits, the State Party submitted that, since 2011, it had adopted a
series of legislative measures extending the suspension of evictions and introducing special
provisions aimed at mitigating the housing emergency. During the COVID-19 health
emergency, the Italian legislature had strengthened – albeit on an exceptional and temporary
basis – the protection of the right to housing by modifying certain aspects of the regulation
of lease contracts. The State Party also referred to the national housing plan, approved by a
decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 16 July 2009, which it described as an
integrated framework of interventions addressing the full range of beneficiaries of public
housing policies. In addition, it highlighted several programmes intended to reduce housing
hardship, including initiatives for the rationalization of public housing, the recovery of
properties confiscated in the context of organized crime, the disposal of public residential
assets, the fund for access to rental housing, the fund for tenants in rent arrears, and the
Housing Conditions Observatory. At the local level, the municipality of Rome was said to
have implemented various housing-related welfare measures, such as vouchers for temporary
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
GE.26-03807
5
housing assistance centres, rent subsidies, contributions towards paying off rent arrears,
social housing initiatives and the allocation of housing units on an exceptional basis.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
On 9 January 2023, the author submitted her comments on the State Party’s
observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
5.2
The author recalls her previous submissions concerning the role of the Constitutional
Court and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. She reiterates that the structural
shortcomings of the housing system of Italy, and the absence of policies capable of ensuring
compliance with article 11 of the Covenant, render the remedies cited by the State Party
ineffective in practice.
5.3
With respect to admissibility, the author emphasizes that the State Party’s assertion
that tenants may oppose eviction does not reflect the reality of Italian law or practice. Under
articles 662 and 665 of the Code of Civil Procedure, judges are required to validate or declare
enforceable an eviction order whenever the lease has expired or even a single month’s rent
is unpaid. Judges have no discretion to refuse an eviction order, nor may they take into
account the tenant’s economic situation or the absence of adequate alternative housing.
Opposition proceedings do not suspend enforcement, and tenants are frequently ordered to
pay the landlord’s legal costs. The law provides no remedy enabling tenants to challenge
eviction enforcement on the basis of the rights protected under article 11 of the Covenant.
The only postponements available are the limited extensions occasionally granted by statute,
which the Constitutional Court has recently discouraged.
5.4
In practice, eviction enforcement proceeds rapidly. After service of a precept and a
notice of enforcement, the bailiff typically executes the eviction on the second visit,
accompanied by the police, a doctor and a locksmith, regardless of the tenant’s vulnerability
or lack of alternative accommodation. There is no possibility of postponing enforcement on
humanitarian or social grounds. In the present case, despite a medical certificate declaring
the author “non-transportable”, the eviction was carried out with police assistance and in the
absence of any municipal officials, leaving her without adequate housing.
5.5
Regarding the merits, the author submits that the State Party’s references to legislative
measures, COVID-19 protections and national housing programmes do not address the
structural deficiencies of the housing policies of Italy. The temporary suspension of evictions
during the pandemic expired on 31 December 2021, and no subsequent measures were
adopted to ensure home-to-home transfer or to protect vulnerable households. The national
housing plan of 16 July 2009, even if fully implemented, would have produced only
approximately 3,500 units nationwide over five years, of which roughly 1,000 would have
been public social housing – far below the needs of the more than 650,000 households on
waiting lists, including 14,000 households in Rome. The various programmes cited by the
State Party have shown minimal results, often producing housing at “lowered rent” levels
that remain unaffordable for low-income households facing eviction for arrears. Subsidies
for access to rental housing are delayed for years, capped at inadequate amounts and
frequently inaccessible due to bureaucratic obstacles or landlord refusal. Local measures in
Rome, including vouchers, rent contributions and emergency allocations of housing units,
are either inapplicable to households currently facing eviction, insufficient in amount or not
implemented in practice. The municipality has issued no directive governing emergency
allocations, and the quota of units available for such allocations has already been exhausted
for the coming years.
5.6
The author submits that, at the time of the eviction, no representative of the
municipality was present, and no alternative accommodation was offered, despite her
advanced age and disability. As a result, she was compelled to rely on temporary hospitality
from a friend in another municipality, while her daughter was forced to sleep in her car. More
than a month after the eviction, the municipality had still not provided any adequate housing
solution. The author maintains that none of the measures cited by the State party addresses
the structural failure to protect the rights guaranteed under articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
6
GE.26-03807
B.
Consideration of admissibility and the interim measures
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 recalls that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol precludes it from
considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies
have been exhausted. The Committee takes note of the State Party’s argument that the
principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been respected in the present case. The
Committee also takes note of the author’s contention that the domestic remedies must be
available and effective and of the claim that, if a State Party objects to the admissibility of a
communication on the basis that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it bears the
burden of proving that remedies exist that are available and effective.
6.3
The Committee further takes note of the author’s uncontested allegation that an appeal
against the final eviction order scheduled for enforcement on 13 April 2022 had no prospect
of success and that such an appeal would impose on her and her daughter an undue financial
burden in view of the need to cover the legal costs of the opposing party in the event of an
unsuccessful outcome. The Committee observes that the State Party refers in general terms
to the existence of the Constitutional Court and to the fact that the principle of exhaustion of
domestic remedies has not been respected. The State Party fails to identify, however, what
remedies would have been effective and accessible in the present case, in particular in the
light of the author’s argument that the remedy of constitutional challenge is inaccessible to
individuals. The Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence, according to which a State
Party raising an objection of admissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies must prove that the author of the communication has not exhausted available and
effective remedies capable of redressing the alleged violation.4 The Committee considers that,
if a State Party argues for inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies, it must identify which remedies should have been exhausted, showing that they are
appropriate and effective,5 which it has failed to do in the present case. The Committee thus
considers that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of
the communication.
6.4
In accordance with article 3 (2) (e) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee recalls
that it will declare inadmissible any communication that is manifestly ill-founded or
insufficiently substantiated. The Committee notes that States Parties have a positive
obligation under article 2 (1) of the Covenant to take steps, individually and through
international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum
of their available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the Covenant by all appropriate means. The Committee recalls, however,
that States Parties may adopt a range of possible policy measures for the implementation of
the rights set forth in the Covenant, as provided for in article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol.
In this regard, the Committee recognizes that States Parties may establish administrative
channels to facilitate the protection of the right to housing, including by requiring individuals
to undertake certain procedures to notify the authorities of their need for assistance, provided
that such formalities do not impose an excessive or unnecessary burden on individuals and
do not have a discriminatory effect.6
6.5
In the present case, the Committee notes that it has not been alleged that the
procedures proposed by the State Party, namely, applying for housing or for assistance from
social services, would have placed an excessive or unnecessary burden on the author or would
have had a discriminatory effect.7 It observes that the author ceased paying rent in 2020, that
4 Ziablitsev v. France (E/C.12/71/D/176/2020), para. 6.6.
5 I.D.G. v. Spain (E/C.12/55/D/2/2014), para. 9.5.
6 Taghzouti Ezqouihel et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/69/D/56/2018), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Loor Chila et al. v.
Spain (E/C.12/70/D/102/2019), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; and Sariego Rodríguez et al. v. Spain
(E/C.12/70/D/92/2019), paras. 7.2 and 7.4.
7 Muñoz García v. Spain (E/C.12/71/D/39/2018), para. 6.4.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
GE.26-03807
7
eviction proceedings started in May 2020 and that she was notified of the eviction order in
September 2020, yet she did not apply for social housing until 21 March 2022 –
approximately 18 months after receiving notice of the eviction and only two days before
submitting her communication to the Committee. The Committee further observes that,
despite being represented by counsel and being aware of the eviction proceedings, the author
has not explained why she failed to apply for social housing in a timely manner.
6.6
The Committee is of the view that the lateness of the author’s request for assistance
and therefore her failure to make use of the administrative channels established by the State
Party, such as the procedure for applying for social housing, constitute a lack of due diligence
in the present case.
6.7
While the Committee acknowledges the author’s particular vulnerability as a result of
her disability and her economic status, the Committee is of the view that she has not shown
that she was diligent in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to secure access
to alternative housing, even though she had been aware of the eviction order since September
2020 at least.8 Consequently, the Committee finds the communication inadmissible under
article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Interim measures and eviction of the author and her daughter
7.1
On 5 April 2022, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the
Committee, requested the State Party to suspend the eviction of the author and her daughter
while the communication was being considered or, alternatively, to grant them adequate
housing following genuine and effective consultation with them.
7.2
The Committee notes that, according to its jurisprudence,9 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, 10 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 harm.11 It also recalls that, as established in its guidelines on interim
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 under 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.12
7.3
The Committee notes that, on 14 December 2022, the author and her daughter were
evicted despite the Committee’s request for the State Party to adopt interim measures and
without having been granted adequate alternative housing following genuine consultation
with them.
7.4
As the State Party did not explain why the interim measures could not be taken, the
Committee is of the view that, in the circumstances, this constitutes an infringement of
article 5 of the Optional Protocol.
8 Ibid., para. 6.5.
9 S.S.R. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/51/2018), paras. 7.6 and 7.7.
10 Committee against Torture, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1.
11 See, mutatis mutandis, European Court of Human Rights, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey,
Applications No. 46827/99 and No. 46951/99, Judgment, 4 February 2005, para. 128; and Committee
against Torture, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 6.1.
12 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr/individual-communications.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
8
GE.26-03807
C.
Conclusion
8.
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional
Protocol;
(b)
That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State Party and to the
author.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
GE.26-03807
9
Annex
[Original: Spanish]
Individual opinion of Committee member Julieta Rossi (dissenting)
1.
First, with regard to the admissibility of the communication, I consider that the
requirements set forth in article 3 of the Optional Protocol have been met and that the
communication is therefore admissible. In this regard, I concur with the majority’s view that
domestic remedies have been exhausted in accordance with article 3 (1) of the Optional
Protocol, for the reasons outlined (paras. 6.2 and 6.3). However, I disagree with the majority’s
decision to declare the communication inadmissible under article 3 (2) (e) of the Optional
Protocol on the grounds that it is insufficiently substantiated because the author has not
shown that she was diligent in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to secure
access to alternative housing.
2.
In my view, this requirement is not directly connected to the subject matter of the
communication – a complaint regarding a forced eviction – particularly when it is presented
as a decisive and exclusive condition for its admissibility. This places an excessive burden
on the author, a woman who is over 80 years old and has a severe disability, who, along with
her daughter, faced eviction proceedings amid the exceptional circumstances of the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. It should also be noted that, according to the
facts of the case (paras. 2.1–2.4 and 2.8–2.10), the author’s daughter attempted to reach an
agreement with the property owner and, when this proved unsuccessful, the author applied
to the relevant authorities for social housing and subsequently submitted a written
communication to the Mayor of Rome requesting either the suspension of the eviction or the
provision of alternative housing.
3.
As regards the merits of the case, in the light of the relevant facts, the issue to be
resolved is whether the eviction of the author and her daughter – without a consultation
process or consideration of alternative housing options, and without ensuring alternative
accommodation when the eviction was ordered and carried out – constituted a violation of
the right to adequate housing recognized in article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To address this
question, I refer to the standards on protection against forced eviction set forth in the
Committee’s opinion in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain.1
4.
I believe that the judicial authority involved in the eviction of Ms. Tabbita and her
daughter failed to conduct a review of proportionality that adequately weighed the rights at
stake or assessed whether the measure was reasonable and proportionate in the light of its
consequences for the author and her daughter in the particular circumstances of the case.
During the legal proceedings, their specific circumstances were not properly examined, no
genuine consultation process was initiated with them, and State agencies with the capacity to
prevent the eviction without the provision of alternative housing were not involved.
5.
In particular, the court failed to take into account the situation of particular
vulnerability of the author – an 84-year-old woman at the time of the eviction with a certified
100% disability who required care and assistance with basic daily activities – or the situation
of her 59-year-old daughter, who was unemployed and served as her mother’s caregiver. The
eviction was carried out without even taking into account the medical certificate submitted
in the case, which attested to the author’s fragile health condition and deemed her
“non-transportable”, and in the absence of any municipal officials. The family’s precarious
economic situation was not taken into account either, nor the disproportionate impact that the
eviction would have on the author and her daughter, considering intersectional factors such
as gender, age, disability and financial status.2
1 El Korrichi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/76/D/188/2020), paras. 8.1–8.10 and 9.1–9.4.
2 Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/74/D/70/2018), paras. 8.9 and 8.10.
E/C.12/79/D/265/2022
10
GE.26-03807
6.
Furthermore, no consultation process was initiated to explore housing alternatives,
nor were the relevant administrative agencies consulted in view of the lack of viable options
to prevent homelessness. As a result, the authors were evicted without being offered any
alternative housing, either temporary or permanent. According to the available information,
which the State Party has not disputed, Ms. Tabbita had to take up temporary accommodation
with a friend in another municipality, while her daughter was forced to sleep in her car. More
than a month after the eviction, the municipality had still not provided an adequate housing
solution. In these circumstances, the State Party’s arguments are insufficient to demonstrate
that it made every possible effort, using the maximum available resources, to prevent the
author and her daughter from becoming homeless.
7.
For these reasons, I consider that the State Party violated the rights of the author and
her daughter under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with
articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant and article 5 of the Optional Protocol, by failing to comply
with the interim measures ordered by the Committee. In the light of this conclusion, the State
Party should assess the housing needs of the author and her daughter and provide alternative
accommodation if necessary. As a guarantee of non-repetition, it should amend its legislation
to allow for an adequate proportionality assessment in eviction cases, ensure effective
consultation and, where appropriate, guarantee the provision of alternative housing.