E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 1.1 The author of the communication is Soraya Moreno Romero, a Spanish national born on 8 March 1987. The author is acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her three minor children, born in 2008, 2014 and 2018. She claims that the State party has violated her rights and those of her children under article 11 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 5 May 2013. The author is not represented by counsel. 1.2 In the present Views, the Committee will first summarize the information and the arguments submitted by the parties, without taking a position. It will then consider the admissibility and merits of the communication and, lastly, set out its conclusions. A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties The facts as submitted by the author1 Before the communication was registered 2.1 Until May 2015, the author had lived with her minor children in the home of some relatives. Because the space was overcrowded and she had limited financial means, 2 she decided that month to begin squatting in a property belonging to a financial institution. While she was negotiating with the institution to enter into a social rental agreement, the property was sold to an investment company. 2.2 On 25 March 2016, the author applied for social housing to the Autonomous Community of Madrid, the regional government authority. Her application file was later closed because not all the documents requested had been received. The author filed an administrative appeal against this decision. 2.3 On 21 November 2017, the investment company that owned the property occupied by the author pressed charges against her for the minor offence of occupying the property of another without authorization. 2.4 On 30 January 2018, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30 found the author guilty of the minor offence of occupying the property of another without authorization and ordered her to pay a fine calculated at a rate of €2 a day over three months and to vacate the property. In its decision, the Court stated that it could not consider the possibility of fully or partially exculpating the author owing to her state of need because she had not shown that she had exhausted all other possible means of accessing housing before resorting to the unlawful conduct of occupying property without the right to do so. In particular, the Court noted that the author had not shown that she had approached social services before she moved into the property. 2.5 On 19 April 2018, Madrid Provincial High Court upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety. 2.6 On 23 April 2018, the Court ordered that the decision be enforced and, if the author had still not vacated the property, that she be evicted. On 11 May 2018, the author requested that the eviction be postponed by one month so that she could find alternative housing. As the party seeking enforcement did not oppose the request, the eviction was postponed on 29 May 2018. 2.7 On 30 May 2018, the author applied to the Community of Madrid for social rental housing under the special scheme for social emergencies. 2.8 On 30 July 2018, the author was notified by the municipal police that, unless she voluntarily vacated the property beforehand, the eviction order would be carried out on 20 August 2018 at 10 a.m. 1 2 2 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. The author had been receiving €587.78 a month since June 2012 under the minimum subsistence income scheme. On 30 July 2018, the author started receiving a monthly allowance of €24.25 per child. She has no other sources of income. GE.21-04761