E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 should consider not only the legality of the eviction under national law but also substantive arguments about proportionality and the need for the measure. 15 6.5 The State party, according to the submitter, should provide adequ ate and reasonable notice to all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction. 16 With regard to delivery of notice, the South African courts have recognized that, where borrowers fail to defend themselves against execution proceedings or to nego tiate terms of notification before a dispute, strict judicial oversight must be ensured, in particular over whether notice was effectively delivered. 17 Author’s comments on the third-party submission 7. By letter dated 12 March 2015 the author submitted her comments on the thirdparty submission. The author argues that the right to receive prior notice in cases of eviction is one of the judicial guarantees that must be applied. She repeats her claim that her right to judicial protection was violated and that as a result she had no opportunity to appear in the proceedings and properly assert her right to housing in the courts, owing to the failure to notify her of the lending institution ’s mortgage enforcement application or of the Court’s decision to admit the application. State party’s observations on the third-party submission 8.1 On 19 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the third -party submission. It argues that the author has had all remedies at her disposal and has enjoyed all procedural guarantees. 8.2 The State party argues that Act No. 1/2013 and Royal Decree No. 27/2012, on protection for mortgagors, contain a protection scheme providing a remarkable set of guarantees, one of which allows the former owner to stay in the p roperty for two years after eviction, as a tenant, with the option of getting help with the rent payments. The State party repeats its view that the mortgage enforcement procedure regulated by the Civil Procedure Act strictly meets the obligations arising from the right to effective judicial protection. 8.3 The State party points out that the author continues to use her home and that there is no violation of her rights. It also reports that, by a court order dated 25 April 2013, the foreclosure procedure was suspended in order to consider whether the clause in the mortgage contract setting the late interest and the legal interest was fair. 8.4 The State party contends that the notifications related to the foreclosure procedure were served at the address specified by the author; that the Court made repeated efforts to notify her; that, after the attempt at serving notice on 28 September 2012, the server had added a note stating: “Checked that one of the letter boxes bore the debtor’s name, went into the building and rang the doorbell but no one answered. __________________ 15 16 17 GE.15-17368 enforcements and special enforcements in respect of residential housing, and re fers to the Constitutional Court ruling in Gundwana (note 13 above), para. 41. It also refers to Folscher (note 13 above), para. 41, in which the Pretoria High Court drew up a non -exhaustive list of 19 factors for the court to consider in deciding whether or not to order mortgage enforcement, in order to ensure security of tenure, including whether the debtor was in any way notified before action was taken. The submitter refers to European Court of Human Rights case law in Orlic v. Croatia, No. 48833/07, para. 65, 2011, and Winterstein and others v. France (note 13 above), para. 82. The submitter refers to the case law of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Kubyana v. Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC); and in Sebola and another v. Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and another, 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC), paras. 75 and 77. The submitter refers to ABSA Bank Ltd v. Lekuku (32700/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 244 (14 October 2014) (Lekuku), para. 39, and Master of the High Court Northern Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, v. Motala NO and others, 2012 (3) SA 325 (SCA), paras. 11 and 12. 9/16