E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 2.2 As a result of the serious economic crisis in the State party and her own personal circumstances, 2 the author missed several mortgage repayments, totalling around €11,000. She claims that the bank (the lending institution) was not prepared to negotiate. 2.3 The lending institution called in the full amount of the loan and launched a special mortgage enforcement procedure in trial court No. 31 in Madrid (the Court), with a view to auctioning off the property. On 21 June 2012, the Court admitted the enforcement application in the amounts of €381,153.66 (principal), €5,725.80 (ordinary interest) and €856.77 (default interest). 2.4 By order of the Court, on 6, 27 and 28 September 2012 the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service attempted to notif y the author of the application and of the Court’s decision to admit the application, at the address of the mortgaged property, as given by the author on the loan contract. However, the server of notice could not find the author. After the third attempt, t he server noted: “No one answers or opens the door, despite numerous calls to the party’s designated residence.” He added: “Checked that one of the letter boxes bore the debtor ’s name, went into the building and rang the doorbell but no one answered. Caretaker says he has not been working there long but the person is on the list of residents and he does not know her as he is only there until 6 p.m.” 3 A final attempt to notify the author was made at 9.24 p.m. on 4 October 2012, again without success. The author claims that she was not at home when notice was being served. 2.5 On 30 October 2012, the Court decided to post the notification on the Court notice board, in order to complete the process of notification of the application and the decision to admit the application. The author claims that there was no public announcement of the posting of notice, it was not announced in any official organ, and it was not published in the Official Gazette. She states that the Court, on not finding her in her usual residence, should have notified her by leaving the notice with the caretaker, who was in the building when attempts were made to serve the notice on 6 and 28 September 2012, or a neighbour. Consequently the Court failed to notify her of the start of the mortgage enforcement procedure, such as to enable her to mount a defence. 2.6 On 11 February 2013 the Court ordered arrangements to be made to auction the mortgaged property. On 1 and 21 March 2013 the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service attempted to serve notice of the auction of the property at the address of the mortgaged property, without success. After his second attempt, the agent noted: “Message left to collect notice from the office by 5 April 2013.” 4 In the end the author picked up the notice by proxy on 4 April 2013. The author claims that it was only then that she was apprised of the mortgage enforcement proceedings and the auction of her home. 2.7 On 10 or 11 April 2013 the author filed a motion for reconsideration against the Court’s auction order of 11 February 2013. She sought annulment of that decision and of the entire mortgage enforcement procedure back to before the original notification, given that she had not been notified of the suit at the addresses known to the lending institution, including the home of a relative and her place of work, in violation of the right to a defence and to effective legal protection, inter alia. The author claims that, under articles 156 and 164 of the Civil Procedure Act, and according to the ca se law of __________________ 2 3 4 GE.15-17368 In evidence the author submits her statements of income (for natural persons) for financial years 2011 and 2012, showing total reckonable income as €4,406 and €22,741.86 respective ly. Copies of the records of service of the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service for 6, 27 and 28 September 2012, provided by the author, bear out her claims. Copies of the records of service of the Madrid Courts Central Notific ation and Enforcement Service for 1 and 21 March 2013, provided by the author, bear out her claims. 3/16