E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 2015, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, admitted a submission from the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) 10 under article 8 of the Optional Protocol and rule 14 of the Committee’s provisional rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol. On 26 February 2015 the Committee transmitted the ESCR-Net submission of 24 February 2015 to the State party and the author and asked for their observations and comments. 6.2 The submitting party points out that there is a serious and widespread risk to housing in the State party in the context of an economic recession and high unemployment, and that between 2008 and 2010 some 400,000 mortgages were enforced. 11 The submitting party also states that the Court of Justice of the European Union had found that Spanish law provided “incomplete and insufficient” protection to borrowers, especially when the mortgaged property was the fa mily home. 12 In the submitting party’s view, the legislative measures taken by the State party, such as Royal Decree-Law No. 6/2012 and Act No. 4/2013, are insufficient to resolve the social crisis caused by mortgage foreclosures, since the Spanish legal fr amework continues to favour financial institutions over the interests of the persons concerned. 6.3 The submitter says that, in order to uphold the rights of the Covenant, eviction may take place only in exceptional circumstances; after having weighed up a ll the possible alternatives — including other ways of paying the debt — in consultation with the community or individual concerned; giving all due process guarantees, such as an effective remedy and an adequate and reasonable period of notice; and ensurin g that the eviction will not leave the person concerned with no home or at risk of other human rights violations. 13 6.4 The State party should provide the greatest possible security, including adequate judicial oversight. In this regard, the submitter argue s that judicial oversight of the mortgage enforcement process is essential, and that it is up to creditors who are seeking to foreclose on mortgages to show the court why the sale of a person ’s home might be justifiable, taking account of all the circumsta nces in each case. 14 The court __________________ 10 11 12 13 14 8/16 The members of ESCR-Net involved in the preparation of the third-party submission were the Center for Economic and Social Rights, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa. It points out that this figure is an estimate based on partial data published by the Spanish judiciary; and it refers to the following sources: General Council of the Judiciary, “Estimación del incremento de carga de los órganos judiciales atribuible a la crisis económica ” (Estimated increase in courts’ workload as a result of the economic crisis), Boletín información estadística (Statistical bulletin), September 2012 (No. 31); and General Council of the Judiciary, “Ejecuciones Hipotecarias presentadas al Tribunal Superior de Justicia: Impacto de la crisis en los órganos del poder judicial ” (Mortgage enforcement applications filed with the High Court: the impact of the crisis on the courts), Madrid (2013), cited in: Observatori DESC y Plataforma de los afectados por la hipoteca, Emergencia habitacional en el Estado español: La crisis de las ejecuciones hipotecarias y los desalojos desde una perspectiva de derechos humanos (Housing emergency in the Spanish State: the foreclosure and eviction crisis from a human rights perspective ) (2013), p. 12, note 17. The submitting party refers to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Mohamed Aziz v. Catalunyacaixa (see note 5), paras. 60-61. The submitting party refers to European Court of Human Rights case law in Connors v. United Kingdom, No. 66746/01, para. 81, 2004-I; Winterstein and others v. France, No. 27013/07, para. 76, 2013; McCann v. United Kingdom, No. 19009/04, para. 53, 2008; Stankova v. Slovakia, No. 7205/02, para. 60, 2007-IV; and Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, No. 25446/06, para. 133, 2012; Constitutional Court of South Africa case law in Gundwana v. Steko Development CC and others, 2011 (3) SA 608 (CC); and Pretoria High Court (South Africa) case law in First Rand Bank v. Folscher, 2011 (4) SA 314 (GNP), para. 40. It also refers to the conclusions adopted in 2011 by the European Committee of Social Rights in Andorra (2011/def/AND/31/2/EN); Portugal (2011/def/PRT/31/2/EN); Romania (2011/def/ROU/16/EN); and Ukraine (2011/def/UKR/31/2/FR). The submitter points out, for example, that, under article 26, paragraph 3, of the South African Constitution, South African courts are required to exercise judicial oversight over bank GE.15-17368