E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 2.20 On 19 February 2014, the Constitutional Court decided not to admit Mr. Ben Djazia’s application for amparo on grounds of the manifest absence of a violation of a fundamental right covered by amparo. The complaint 3.1 The authors argue that the State party violated their right under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, since they were evicted by order of Court No. 37 despite the fact that they did not have alternative accommodation and that the measure affected their minor children, who had the right to special protection.5 As a result of this measure, the authors and their children faced a situation of uncertainty, extreme insecurity and vulnerability. 3.2 The judicial proceedings that concluded with the eviction of the authors did not observe judicial guarantees since Spanish law does not properly guarantee the right to housing in the context of judicial proceedings relating to evictions that result from the termination of rental contracts. Courts do not evaluate the impact of forced evictions on lessees or the particular circumstances of each case. Court No. 37 did not take into account that the authors did not have alternative housing or the impact of the eviction order on their two minor children.6 3.3 Relief measures for persons on very low incomes or without any income are insufficient to protect the right to adequate housing, as demonstrated by the fact that, for more than 10 years, Mr. Ben Djazia was unsuccessful in his attempts to apply for social housing from the Madrid Housing Institute. Although the Madrid Housing Institute, the Department of Social Affairs and the Government Agency for Family and Social Services of Madrid City Council were informed of the family situation, they did not take any steps to prevent the authors from being left without alternative housing when faced with imminent eviction. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 22 May 2015, the State party argued that the communication was inadmissible under article 3 (2) (e) and (f) of the Optional Protocol because it is manifestly ill-founded and is an abuse of the right to submit a communication. Furthermore, the communication does not reveal that the authors were at a clear disadvantage within the meaning of article 4 of the Optional Protocol. 4.2 The State party argues that the authors deliberately failed to provide relevant information in order to confuse the Committee, for example when they alleged that they had been the victims of a forced eviction. In fact, their situation was not a forced eviction in the sense of the Committee’s general comment No. 7 (1997) on the right to adequate housing (art. 11 (1) of the Covenant): forced evictions (paras. 3, 6 and 7). The authors faced eviction upon the expiration of their private rental contract without any action being taken by the authorities, with the exception of the intervention of the judiciary as a mediator in the absence of an agreement between the lessor and the lessee. 4.3 It is not true that the authorities ignored the authors: beginning in 2002, the authors received ongoing social support from the Madrid City Council social services centre in the district of Tetuán. 7 However, it was Mr. Ben Djazia’s attitude which to a large extent hindered any improvement of the family’s financial situation, as he assumed that such an improvement was the sole responsibility of the public authorities. 4.4 According to a report by the Directorate General for Housing and Rehabilitation of the Community of Madrid, dated 21 April 2015, since 2006, Mr. Ben Djazia’s income had been from allowances, benefits and sporadic work in the informal economy. According to 5 6 7 4 In their reasoning, the authors also refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force for the State party on 5 January 1991. The authors refer to the Committee’s concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Spain on the implementation of the Covenant (E/C.12/ESP/CO/5), para. 22. According to the social report of Madrid City Council-Tetuán Municipal Board of 24 April 2015, the centre provided social support for processing Mr. Ben Djazia’s income support application and his participation in job-seeking schemes. GE.17-12396