E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 contract 5 or, for example, the way the lending institution calculated the interest she was required to pay. 3.5 The author argues that the legislation regulating mortgage enforcement proceedings does not adequately protect people’s right to mount a proper legal defence of their homes. People affected by these proceedings are in many cases unaware that their creditors have filed a lawsuit until they are dispossessed or evicted. What is more, the State party’s procedural law precludes the court in cases of this kind from taking precautionary measures to ensure that its final decision is fully effective, for example where the terms of the contract are unfair. In this regard, referring to article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the author argues that the State party has not taken adequate legislative measures to achieve the full realization of the right to housing and to guarantee that right under article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.6 As reparation the author asks the Committee to require the State party to roll back the judicial mortgage enforcement proceedings to the time of the initial notification, in order to effectively guarantee her right to housing and allow her to defend that right in the ordinary courts; in the alternative, the author seeks an award of €250,000 as compensation for non-material damage. She also asks that the State party adopt appropriate legislative measures to guarantee the rights established in the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 13 October 2014 the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. As to the facts of the communication, the State party argues that, in her claim to the Committee, the author maintains that the dwelling in question is her primary residence. However, in her motion to the Court of 10 April 2013, she argued that the Court should have served notice not only at her residence at the mortgaged property, as established by the author herself in the public instrument of credit, but in another family home or, failing that, at her workplace address, which she says were also known to the lending institution. 4.2 The State party points out that in the 21 June 2012 decision to admit the mortgage enforcement proceedings, the Court informed the debtor that she could challenge mortgage enforcement on the grounds set forth in article 695 of the Civil Procedure Act. This procedure does not prevent the debtor subject to enforcement from using ordinary court procedures to resolve issues relating to the defence of their rights and interests. It adds that the Constitutional Court has found that the mo rtgage enforcement procedure, and more specifically articles 695 and 698 of the Civil Procedure Act, do not affect the right to effective judicial protection as regards the equality of the parties and the right to decent and adequate housing, since the rul ing handed down in this procedure does not produce effects of res judicata and the ordinary procedure is always available. 6 4.3 The State party states that the Court’s decision was served at the address given by the author in the public instrument drawing up the loan with mortgage security. According to articles 682, 683 and 686 of the Civil Procedure Act, the payment demand — the first step in the mortgage enforcement procedure — and subsequent notifications, shall be served at a residence freely specified by the mortgagor. Thus the demands and notifications are not served at an address chosen arbitrarily by the creditor or the court. Such a system is essential if the process is to work at all; it __________________ 5 6 GE.15-17368 The author refers to the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) ruling of 14 March 2013 in case C-415/11, Mohamed Aziz v. Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa). The State party refers to Constitutional Court decision No. 112/2011 of 19 July 2011. 5/16