E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 9.6 The author submitted a communication to the Committee on 28 January 2014, within the time limit set in article 3, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 9.7 The Committee finds that the communication in this case meets the requirements of admissibility under article 3, in particular under article 3, paragraph 2 (e), of the Optional Protocol. It is a communication that raises the possibility of a violation of the author’s right to housing by reason of possibly inadequate notice of mortgage enforcement proceedings, which, it is claimed, prevented a proper defence in those proceedings, and the Committee therefore considers that the communication is sufficiently substantiated for consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits Facts and legal issues 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication taking into account all the information provided to it in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The author claims that, after she had missed several mortgage repayments on her normal place of residence, in 2012 the lending institution took mortgage enfor cement proceedings against her, but that she did not receive adequate notice and accordingly became aware of the proceedings only after the auction of her home was ordered. Consequently, she believes that she did not in practice have access to effective an d timely judicial protection, which prevented her from mounting a judicial response to the proceedings and protecting her right to housing in the courts, with the result that she now finds herself in a position of vulnerability, uncertainty and anxiety. 10.3 The State party argues that in her motion for reconsideration the author referred to another family home, which means that the dwelling in question was not her usual residence; that the Court served notice of the decision to admit the mortgage enforcement application in accordance with the law, at the address the author herself had given in the mortgage loan instrument; that only after several unsuccessful attempts to serve notice in person did the Court order notification to be served by publicly posting the notice in accordance with article 686, paragraph 3, of the Civil Procedure Act; and that the public posting of a notice of proceedings meets the requirements of the right to effective judicial protection. Moreover, the State argues that, when notice was being served on 28 September 2012, the author deliberately refused to receive the notification of the application and the Court ’s decision to admit the application (see para. 8.4). Lastly the State party has informed the Committee that there has in any case been no eviction, enforcement or auction of the mortgaged property as the author lodged an ordinary appeal that resulted in suspension of enforcement, and accordingly continues to live in the dwelling, and her rights have not been violated. 10.4 As regards the nature of the mortgaged property referred to in the present communication, the Committee takes note of the author ’s explanations that when she mentioned another family residence in the mortgage enforcement proceeding, she was referring to the home of a member of her family (see para. 5.1), that she lives in the residence in question and that she does not own another residence. The documentation provided by the author (see note 7 above), which has not been contested by the State party, bears out her claims. None of the documentation submitted to the Committee indicates that the property in question is not the author ’s usual place of residence or that she owns another home. Consequently, in the light of the documentation contained in the file and the information provided by the parties, the Committee views the property in question as the author ’s usual place of residence. GE.15-17368 11/16