E/C.12/55/D/2/2014
10.5 As regards the author ’s absence on 28 September 2012, when an attempt was
made to serve notice of the lending institution’s application and the Court’s decision to
admit the application, the Committee observes that neither the copy of the record of
service of the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service of 28
September 2012, provided by the author, nor any other document, shows that she was
present in her usual place of residence and that she had deliberately refused to receive
the notice ordered by the Court (see para. 2.4 and notes 3 and 18 above).
10.6 In the light of the Committee’s conclusion on the facts relevant to the case, the
main legal problem posed by this communication is whether the author ’s right to
housing, established in article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, was violated by the
State party as a consequence of a mortgage enforcement process i n which, according
to the author, she was not properly notified of the application, thus preventing her
from defending her rights under the Covenant. To answer that question, the Committee
will first recall certain important components of the right to hous ing, in particular
those relating to the legal protection of that right, and then go on to consider the facts
of the case.
The right to housing and legal protection of that right
11.1 The human right to adequate housing is a fundamental right central t o the
enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights 20 and is inextricably linked to
other human rights, including those set forth in the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. 21 The right to housing should be ensured to all persons
irrespective of income or access to economic resources, 22 and States parties shall take
whatever measures are necessary to achieve the full realization of this right. 23 Many
component elements of the right to adequate housing are closely bound up with the
provision of domestic legal remedies to ensure the effective enjoyment of the right. 24
11.2 The Committee also recalls that all persons should possess a degree of security
of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and
other threats 25 and that instances of forced eviction are prima facie incompatible with
the requirements of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in
accordance with the relevant principles of international law. 26 The Committee
considers that States parties should ensure that procedures in the context of forced
evictions, or that might affect security of tenure and possibly result in eviction, apply
the procedural protections that will guarantee, among other things, a real opportunity
for consultation with those affected and adequate and reasonable notice for all affected
persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction. 27
11.3 In addition, the Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant imposes various
obligations which are of immediate effect. 28 Therefore, in accordance with article 2,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant, States parties must take measures to ensure the
enjoyment of the rights established in the Covenant “by all appropriate means,
__________________
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12/16
See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (1992), on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para.
1, of the Covenant), para. 1.
Ibid., paras. 7 and 9.
Ibid., para. 7.
Ibid., para. 12.
Ibid., para. 17.
Ibid. para. 8 (a).
Ibid., para. 18, and the Committee’s general comment No. 7 (1997), on the right to adequate
housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant): Forced evictions, para. 1.
See the Committee’s general comment No. 7, para. 15.
See the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (1991), on the nature of States parties’ obligations (art.
2, para. 1, of the Covenant), para. 1.
GE.15-17368