Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 205/20211*, 2**
- *Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-eighth session (8–26 September 2025). ↩
- **The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Aslan Abashidze, Nadir Adilov, Lazhari Bouzid, Peijie Chen, Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu, Charafat El Yedri Afailal, Peters Sunday Omologbe Emuze, Santiago Manuel Fiorio Vaesken, Ludovic Hennebel, Joo-Young Lee, Karla Vanessa Lemus de Vásquez, Seree Nonthasoot, Giuseppe Palmisano, Laura Elisa Pérez, Julieta Rossi, Preeti Saran and Michael Windfuhr. ↩
State Party: Spain
Date of adoption of decision: 24 September 2025
1.1 The author of the communication is Soad el Fandor, who is of unknown nationality and was born on 22 December 1977. She submitted the communication on behalf of herself and her children, Hamza Chandi, born on 1 January 1997, Chandia Chandi, born on 1 February 1998 and Kacem Chandi, born on 5 March 2001, whose nationality is also unknown. The author claims that the State Party has violated her and her children’s rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant because they are subject to an eviction order in respect of the property they live in and have no alternative housing. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 5 May 2013. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2 On 15 February 2021, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications, registered the communication and, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol, requested the State Party to take measures to avoid possible irreparable harm to the author and her children by suspending their eviction from the accommodation they were occupying while the communication was under consideration by the Committee or, alternatively, by granting them alternative accommodation, within the framework of genuine and effective consultation with the author.
A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Before registration of the communication
2.2 On 27 May 2019, administrative eviction proceedings were initiated against the author for occupying subsidized public housing without legal title, in accordance with article 15 (2) (f) of Act No. 13/2005 of 11 November 2005 on subsidized housing and land.5
- This article establishes as a cause for eviction “occupying a dwelling or its common areas, rooms or outbuildings without legal title”. ↩
2.3 By judgment of 27 June 2019, the author’s ex-husband was convicted of violence against women and domestic violence. The sentence included a ban on coming within 500 metres of the author and her son Hamza for a period of two years.
2.4 On 6 September 2019, the Provincial Director issued a resolution in which she found that the grounds for eviction had been substantiated and consequently approved eviction from the dwelling and required the occupants to vacate the property and hand over the keys to the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency within 30 days. As part of the processing of the case, the author was able to raise claims at hearing, where she was assisted by counsel. On 24 February 2020, the Director General of the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency issued a resolution dismissing the author’s appeal, thus confirming the eviction decision. The resolution, which marked the end of administrative remedies, could be appealed within two months. The author failed to lodge an appeal, so the resolution became final.
2.5 The Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency requested the family to voluntarily vacate the property by 6 October 2020. When the request was not complied with, the Agency set 17 February 2021 as the date for their forced eviction and filed an application to the Administrative Court for judicial authorization to enter the dwelling.
2.6 Administrative Court No. 2 of Almeria, after finding that the formal and substantive requirements under the applicable regulations were met, issued an order on 11 December 2020 authorizing the Agency to enter the dwelling. The author filed an appeal against the order, claiming that the authorization to enter her home was illegitimate, as she was in a situation of extreme social vulnerability and the authorities had not provided her with adequate alternative housing. In addition, the author requested a stay of execution of the eviction, which was denied. On 27 May 2021, the Administrative Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia dismissed the appeal of the order, considering that the author’s approach in the appeal was incorrect because instead of calling into question the fulfilment of the formal and substantive requirements for authorization to enter the dwelling, she was attempting to reopen, through the appeal, an examination of the lawfulness of the eviction resolution, which was final given that it had not been challenged.6
- At the same time, on 19 January 2021, the Office of the Ombudsman of Andalusia sent a communication to the City Council of Almeria and the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency requesting the suspension of the eviction until the family concerned had alternative housing. ↩
2.7 There is no record that an appeal in cassation has been filed before the Supreme Court or that a remedy of amparo has been sought before the Constitutional Court.
After registration of the communication
2.8 On 17 February 2021, the scheduled date of the forced eviction, the author’s daughter voluntarily handed over the keys to the property, rendering the judicial authorization for forced entry into the dwelling unnecessary. The author claims that she handed over the keys to avoid any violence and that the family has no stable housing alternative, which is causing them irreparable harm.
2.9 On 4 February 2022, Administrative Court No. 2 of Almeria ordered the closure of the case concerning the authorization of entry into the dwelling, noting that the keys had been handed over on the scheduled day without incident.
2.10 According to the report of the City Council of Almeria of 7 March 2022, in a telephone conversation with the City Council’s social services, it was stated that the author and her children were living at the home of relatives and an address in the capital of Almeria was provided. With regard to the author’s income, she continues to receive an average monthly salary of 1,000 euros. Two of her children also work, but there is no record of their income. There is no record that the family has applied for social benefits or, in general, that it has claimed social assistance. There is also no record that the family has a pending social housing application. There is, however, evidence of an application for registration in the municipal subsidized housing registry of the City Council of Almeria, made in July 2018. As indicated in the application, the period of validity was three years, and there is no record that a new application has been submitted or that the information in the pending application has been updated or modified.
Complaint
In her initial submission, the author claimed that the State Party would violate her and her children’s rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant if they were forcibly evicted on 17 February 2021 without being provided with alternative housing. The author noted that she had earned €785, €575 and €863 as a seasonal agricultural labourer in the months of November 2020, December 2020 and January 2021, respectively. Her children, Hamza Chandi and Chandia Chandi, were both attending university at the time. Her third child, Kacem Chandi, also worked seasonally as an agricultural labourer and his monthly income was around €950 in 2020. According to a social services report dated 21 January 2021, the family was at risk of vulnerability owing to a situation of gender violence and domestic violence and unstable employment.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 Regarding admissibility, in its observations of 15 March 2022, the State Party argues that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies before turning to the Committee. First, the author did not file an administrative appeal against the decision of the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency ordering her eviction from the home she was occupying, after being notified of the decision, and therefore the decision had become final. The author attempted to correct this omission during the judicial process that the Agency subsequently initiated to obtain authorization to enter the dwelling for the purpose of enforcing the eviction. In this process, an attempt was made to have the eviction decision found inadmissible and to have the eviction of the dwelling’s occupants deemed inappropriate if they were not offered alternative housing and it was claimed that a situation of “extreme vulnerability” was involved. However, as rightly explained by the High Court of Justice in ruling on the appeal against the order of 11 December 2020, it was not the appropriate procedure for putting forward substantive arguments against the eviction decision, as the purpose of the process to seek authorization for entry is essentially limited to confirming that a final administrative decision exists.
4.2 The judicial remedy against the eviction decision was a perfectly accessible and effective means for the author to challenge the legitimacy of the eviction. Moreover, no explanation was provided in the submission as to what might have prevented or hindered the author from challenging the decision or might have rendered the judicial remedy ineffective in her case.
4.3 Secondly, domestic remedies in relation to the judicial authorization to enter the dwelling, contained in the order of 11 December 2020, have not been exhausted. The order itself notes the possibility of lodging an appeal in cassation. There is also no record of any remedy of amparo having been sought before the Constitutional Court.
4.4 With regard to the merits, the State Party argues that the authorities at the central, autonomous community and local levels have not violated article 11 (1) of the Covenant, in particular as there is no evidence that the author’s family is in a situation of social exclusion that prevents it from accessing the private housing market. In fact, from the moment the family was evicted from the dwelling it had occupied without title and the keys were handed over to the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency, the family has lived in alternative housing procured through its own resources. Social services have been following up with the family since at least 2019, to the extent possible given that the information provided by the family informally and only verbally, in particular during social services’ last intervention, has been incomplete and unspecific. In any event, this information does not indicate a situation of social exclusion or an inability to cover expenses stemming from their need for housing. Moreover, there is no record that the family has applied for public housing and is awaiting the processing of their application, apart from the application made in 2018, which appears not to have been renewed.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In her comments of 29 August 2022, the author considers that the State Party’s claims do not undermine the complaint. She takes the view that the claims are completely inappropriate, as they aim to create confusion by exploiting the current situation and ignoring the rights violation that occurred when the family was evicted without alternative housing. As described in the social services report issued by the City Council of Almeria, the family is in a situation of social vulnerability owing to a lack of alternative housing, scarce financial resources and a member who is a victim of gender-based violence. The author attaches a letter from the head of the municipal subsidized housing registry, dated 10 February 2021, according to which an exception to the obligation for subsidized housing to be allocated to the author through the registry cannot be made until social services issue a report confirming that the family is at risk of social exclusion and their situation is urgent. According to the letter, the social services report dated 21 January 2021 does not reflect the situation of social exclusion or the urgency of the situation.
B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility
6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible.
6.2 The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as she did not file an administrative appeal against the resolution of 24 February 2020 of the Director General of the Andalusia Housing and Refurbishment Agency, dismissing the appeal against the eviction decision of 6 September 2019. The Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol, “domestic remedies” are all remedies available in direct relation to the events that initially gave rise to the alleged violation and that, prima facie, may be reasonably considered effective means of remedying the alleged violations of the Covenant.7 The Committee notes that the principal complaint put forward by the author in her communication is that evicting her family would be a violation of the Covenant owing to the absence of alternative housing. Therefore, the remedies that must be exhausted are, first and foremost, those directly related to the eviction, such as remedies aimed at preventing or delaying the eviction or serving to notify the courts of the lack of alternative housing.8 In this regard, the Committee notes that the author subsequently appealed the order of 11 December 2020 of Administrative Court No. 2 of Almeria concerning the authorization to enter the dwelling for the purpose of enforcing the eviction. However, the Committee notes that the High Court of Justice found that this was not the appropriate procedure to put forward substantive arguments against the eviction decision, as the purpose of the process to seek authorization for entry was essentially limited to confirming that a final administrative decision on eviction had been issued.
6.3 The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information or documentation explaining why she did not lodge an administrative appeal against the resolution of 24 February 2020. In particular, the author has not provided explanations as to why this remedy was not available or effective in the specific circumstances of her case. The Committee considers that this would have been an effective remedy aimed at avoiding the eviction measure. In the absence of any information from the author to refute the State Party’s argument concerning the failure to exhaust all remedies, it therefore concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
C. Conclusion
The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol;
(b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State Party.