E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 would not be feasible to make the creditor responsible for v erifying the debtor ’s place of residence. 4.4 According to the State party, it was only after several attempts to notify the author that the Court decided to serve notice of the mortgage enforcement proceedings by posting notice publicly, in accordance with article 686, paragraph 3, of the Civil Procedure Act. Posting notice of proceedings is consistent with the obligations deriving from the right to effective judicial protection. Once notice had been served by posting the notification of enforcement proceedings, in accordance with article 691 of the Civil Procedure Act, an auction of the mortgaged property was announced in the court order of 11 February 2013, which was finally collected by the author ’s agent on 4 April 2013 after two unsuccessful attempts to notify her at the address she had given. 4.5 The State party points out that the author filed only a motion for reconsideration of the 11 February 2013 court order calling for the mortgaged property to be auctioned, a remedy of a kind that will serve to challenge the legality of an act but not to get the act set aside for violation of fundamental rights. It goes on to state that the author did not apply to have the order annulled, which is the correct procedure to use when seeking to have procedural acts affecting fundamental rights set aside, and that explains why, later, the Constitutional Court was unable to consider whether notification by the posting of notice had violated any fundamental right and could therefore be annulled by the court. 4.6 The State party points out that the subject of the communication, the issue in respect of which the author exhausted domestic remedies, is the alleged failure to give proper notice of the mortgage enforcement process; and that it cannot be extended to other issues or circumstances related to that process or to mortgage enforcement. 4.7 The State party advises that, as at the date of submission of its observations, there had been no eviction from the mortgaged property, and no enforcement or auction, and that the author was living in the property; also that the author had petitioned the Court for suspension of the auction procedure, citing the invalidity of certain clauses in the mortgage loan contract. On 4 October 2013, the Court partially accepted this petition, finding clause 6 of the contract (“default interest”) invalid. 4.8 With the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the right established in article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the State party promulgated Act No. 1/2013 of 14 May, on measures to strengthen protection for mortgage holders, debt restructuring and social rents; and Royal Decree-Law No. 27/2012 of 15 November, on urgent measures to strengthen protection for mortgage holders. Moreover the State party is of the view that the mortgage enforcement procedure regulated by the Civil Procedure Act strictly meets the obligations arising from the right to effective judicial protection. In particular, it stresses that it is up to the debtor to specify an address for notification; that this address can be changed at any time by the debtor; that the procedure provides for several attempts to be made to serve notice in person and only exceptionally, where this is not possible, for notice to be served by public posting of the notification; that it is possible to move at any time into ordinary proceedings so that debtors can raise any questions in relation to the defence of their rights and interests; that it allows for a stay of proceedings to seek to have unfair clauses in mortgage contracts declared invalid; and that at any point in the process a party may apply to have an act annulled if they consider that the right to effective judicial protection has been violated in the course of the enforcement. 6/16 GE.15-17368