E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, notification by public posting of notice can be used only after exhausting all measures to serve notice in person and to try to locate the defendant at other addresses. 2.8 On 23 April 2013 the Court dismissed the author ’s motion for reconsideration. In its ruling, the Court stated that a court order for payment had to be served at the address agreed by the parties, i.e., the first address given or one given later in accordance with article 683 of the Civil Procedure Act. According to the Court, amended article 686, paragraph 3, of the Act permits the Court to proceed directly with posting of notice as a special step in the preliminaries to mortgage enforcement proceedings, with no need to serve the order to pay again at the defendant’s workplace or any other address. In the author ’s case the Court pointed out that the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service had made three valid attempts to notify her, including two attempts in the evenings, as suggested by the building caretaker. In addition the Court stated that it had no jurisdiction to annul the auction order of 11 February 2013, under articles 5 and 562, paragraph 2, of the Civil Procedure Act and article 455 of the Organic Act on the Judiciary. 2.9 On 23 May 2013, the author filed an appeal in amparo with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the Court’s decision to dismiss her motion for reconsideration violated her rights to a defence and to effective judicial protection und er articles 24 and 25 of the Constitution of the State party; and that it failed to apply the case law of the Constitutional Court. The author maintained that the Court failed to notify her of the mortgage enforcement proceedings or of the decision to admi t the proceedings, and did not transmit any other communication before the auction order, and that it failed to exhaust all available means of serving notice in person, in accordance with articles 155, 156 and 683 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2.10 On 16 October 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the author ’s appeal on grounds of “manifest absence of violation of any fundamental right covered by amparo”, in accordance with articles 44, paragraph 1, and 50, paragraph 1 (a), of the Organic Act on the Constitutional Court. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party violated her right to adequate housing under article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.2 She points out that her case has arisen in a situation of serious social crisis in the State party, with more than 400,000 evictions and foreclosures from 2007 up to the time she submitted her communication to the Committee. 3.3 The author argues that the rights she enjoys under the Covenant mean that courts must ensure that notice is effectively served. Yet in her case, after the failed attempts to serve notice in person at her home, the Court proceeded directly to the posting of notice without making use of other forms or methods of serving notice as established in the Civil Procedure Act. As a result of the Court’s lack of diligence, she was not notified of the mortgage enforcement proceedings brought by the lending institution or of the decision to admit the proceedings, and received no other communication prior to the auction order. The author argues that in practice the failure to notify her prevented her from mounting a legal response to the suit and protecting her right to housing in court, since she became aware of the existence of the proceedings only when the Court ordered the auction of her home. As a result of the lack of effective and timely judicial protection, the author claims that she is now in a position of vulnerability, uncertainty and anxiety, a situation that has seriously affected her health. 3.4 According to the author, the lack of effective access to the courts of the State party prevented her from challenging in court the unfair nature of the terms of the 4/16 GE.15-17368