E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 6.6 The State party is of the view that article 11 of the Covenant does not protect individuals who are illegally occupying the property of another. The right to own property, individually or with others, is set forth in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 33 of the State party’s Constitution. Protecting property, considered internationally to be a fundamental human right, ensures that property owners are able to satisfy their basic needs; they must therefore be protected from arbitrary deprivation of their property. Accordingly, article 11 (1) of the Covenant cannot be used to sanction instances where the property of others is unlawfully appropriated, as in the present case. Moreover, in its general comment No. 7 (1997), the Committee recognizes that evictions are sometimes justifiable, such as in cases of squatting, although they must be carried out in accordance with the law, with adequate legal remedies available to those affected, in a timely manner and in the presence of competent officials. 6.7 The State party argues that the right to housing is not an absolute right to a particular dwelling owned by another person, nor is it an absolute right to be provided with housing by the authorities, if public resources are insufficient for the provision of such housing. The State party considers that article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 11 (1) of the Covenant do not recognize an enforceable, subjective right, but rather establish a mandate for States to take appropriate measures to promote public policies aimed at improving access to decent housing for everyone. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 5 the right enshrined in article 34 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not the right to housing but rather the right to housing assistance within the framework of social policies based on article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This State mandate has been expressly recognized in article 47 of the Constitution and various statutes of autonomy. In line with this article and according to the case law of the Constitutional Court,6 the right to housing is “a constitutional mandate or guiding principle” that calls primarily for social measures but does not in itself constitute a separate area of competence of the State. It is therefore the duty of the public authorities to create the conditions and establish the standards that will enable Spaniards to exercise their right to decent and adequate housing; the authorities do so, in particular, by regulating land use for the common good in order to prevent speculation. As the right is one that is realized progressively, the State party is in full compliance with its international obligations in the area and refers to the statements it has made in connection with communications similar to the present one on its efforts in the area of housing. 6.8 The Autonomous Community of Madrid, the regional government authority involved in the present case, has a Social Housing Agency that manages its social housing stock. Housing is allocated by means of the procedure set out in Decree No. 52/2016. To be eligible for special needs housing, an applicant must be an adult or an emancipated minor, have income that is no more than 3.5 times the Government’s multipurpose indicator for income (which was €537.84 a month in 2018), not have been awarded public housing within the 10 preceding years, not be the outright owner of another property, live or work in the Community of Madrid, and not be occupying a property without the right to do so or the consent of the owner. Individuals considered to be in a situation of special need making them eligible for priority housing include those who have been evicted, those who are victims of violence, those living in homes of poor, substandard or inadequate quality, and those living in homes where the rent is more than 30 per cent of the family income. Applications are reviewed and scored using a common scale and housing is allocated according to availability, in the order of the scores obtained, which reflect the financial, personal and social circumstances of the family units concerned. 6.9 In the present case, the authors unlawfully gained access to a property and claim that article 11 (1) provides protection for this unlawful occupation. The right to housing clearly cannot be used as a cover for unlawful acts. The State party points out that the authorities have acted in accordance with the resources they have available, the laws governing the allocation of public housing and the principles of equality, transparency and competition, 5 6 6 Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, order of the Court of Justice of the European Union C-539/14 of 16 July 2015, para. 49. Constitutional Court judgments No. 152/1988, No. 7/2010 and No. 33/2019. GE.21-04761