Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 225/20211*, 2**
- *Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-eighth session (8–26 September 2025). ↩
- **The following members of the Committee took part 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 Views: 24 September 2025
1.1 The author of the communication is Olga Saguer Sais, a national of Spain born on 20 April 1968. She is submitting the communication on behalf of herself and her son, Jan Dorian Gatjens Saguer, who was born on 15 January 2002. The author claims to be the victim of a violation of her rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, because she is facing eviction from the property she lives in with her son and has 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 10 September 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 damage to the author and her son by suspending their eviction from the property they were occupying while the communication was under consideration by the Committee or, alternatively, by granting them alternative accommodation, following genuine and effective consultation with the author.
A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Before registration of the communication
2.1 After signing a lease with the landlord on 16 March 2017, the author began residing with her son, who is recognized as having a degree of disability of 54 per cent because he has Asperger’s syndrome, on commercial premises fitted out for housing.
2.2 In February 2020, the author stopped paying rent on the property.
2.3 On 20 May 2020, the owner sued the author for non-payment before the Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 29. The author applied for free legal aid and, on 20 June 2020, she was assigned both a lawyer and a court-appointed legal representative. On 13 July 2020, the author’s legal counsel filed a formal objection to the lawsuit. On 24 July 2020, the trial took place. Both parties appeared, but no agreement was reached.
2.4 The Court upheld the claim in judgment No. 136/2020 of 27 July 2020, finding that the non-payment of rent by the author had been demonstrated. This decision could have been appealed before the Barcelona Provincial Court, but the author did not appeal it. The author explains that she could not appeal the judgment because she was unable to pay the amount of rent due.
2.6 Following the suspension of the first eviction, a new date for its execution was set for 15 February 2021, but it too was postponed.
2.7 By order of 11 February 2021, the Court ruled that Royal Decree-Law No. 11/2020 of 31 March 2020, on the adoption of additional urgent social and economic measures to address the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic could not be used as a legal basis for the suspension of the proceedings, since the property concerned was commercial premises and not a dwelling. The eviction date was therefore maintained. The author filed an appeal against this order, but it was deemed inadmissible on 3 March 2021 because it did not comply with the relevant legal requirements.5
- There is no record in the file that the author attempted to appeal the decision of inadmissibility. ↩
2.8 On 5 May 2021, the author requested a stay of proceedings under Royal Decree-Law No. 37/20206 of 22 December 2020; this request was rejected on 15 June 2021, on the basis that an application for reconsideration by the enforcing party had been upheld.
- Royal Decree-Law No. 37/2020 of 22 December 2020, on urgent measures to address situations of social and economic vulnerability in the housing and transport sectors. ↩
2.9 The third eviction date was set for 20 May 2021, but it was again suspended, and a new eviction date of 17 September 2021 was established.7 On an unspecified date, the author again requested that her eviction be postponed.
- Neither of the court decisions establishing these two eviction dates were challenged by the author (writs of 12 April 2021 and 1 July 2021, respectively). ↩
After registration of the communication
2.10 By order of 15 September 2021, the eviction date of 17 September 2021 was maintained. The author applied for the reconsideration of this decision, but her application was dismissed by order of 20 October 2021.
2.11 The eviction scheduled for 17 September 2021 was executed. The social services of the Barcelona City Council arranged the transfer and storage of the family’s belongings and proposed temporary accommodation in a hostel. The author reports that she was offered short-term housing for two months in a university residence, and that she and her son would have had to share the accommodation and would not have had their own bathroom.
2.12 The social services have been following up with the family since 2018. They have proposed a plan aimed at covering the author’s basic needs such as food, job orientation and economic benefits, in addition to providing support for her son.
2.13 The author is currently living with her son in a dwelling without legal title.
Complaint
In her initial submission, the author claimed that the State Party would violate her and her son’s rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant if they were forcibly evicted without being provided with alternative housing. The author maintained that the execution of the forced eviction would violate her rights and those of her son, who has a disability. Her son’s rights to a home and to the protection of his most basic needs, including basic supplies, healthcare and schooling, would be affected. The author also claimed that she did not have the option of being housed by relatives or other people and that she did not have the financial or material means to find housing on the rental market. The author’s income, which she has been receiving under a guaranteed minimum income scheme8 since 19 May 2020, amounts to a total of €780.87 per month. This is her only income, as her son’s father did not provide child support. The author stated that she had not been able to apply for subsidized housing because she was living on commercial premises, and the criteria imposed by the municipal administration made it impossible for social services to offer alternative housing in such a situation. The author provided a vulnerability report prepared by the municipal social services indicating her situation of social vulnerability and housing exclusion.
- Minimum income provided for in Catalonia under Act No. 14/2017 of July 20, on the guaranteed minimum income scheme. ↩
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 10 May 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
4.2 The State Party notes that the Committee’s request for the adoption of interim measures was forwarded to the judicial authority on the same day it was received. This judicial authority has been assessing the family’s situation of vulnerability throughout the proceedings and has informed the social services of each scheduled eviction. The State Party therefore considers that the interim measures initially requested in the communication have lost their purpose and are no longer justified.
4.3 Regarding admissibility, the State Party argues that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies before appealing to the Committee. The author submitted the communication before the eviction effectively took place and, therefore, before the legal proceedings had been concluded. In addition, following the submission of a communication to the Committee, the author applied for the reconsideration of the order of 15 September 2021 denying the suspension of the eviction. However, the author also had the opportunity to challenge other court decisions in the course of the proceedings, but there is no record that she did so. The orders dated 23 September 2020, 10 November 2020 and 1 July 2021 were not appealed even though there was an opportunity to do so. The State Party notes that the author states in the communication that she has not been able to apply for subsidized housing as she is living on commercial premises. However, the State Party points out that, since her eviction on 17 September 2021, she has been occupying a new dwelling, and there is no record of her applying for any public housing from the competent authorities.
4.4 The State Party notes that the right to housing recognized in the Covenant is not an enforceable right but a mandate that requires States to take appropriate measures to promote public policies whose aim is to improve access to decent housing.9 In the present case, the State Party argues that the State, autonomous and local authorities have not violated article 11 (1) of the Covenant. The eviction was suspended three times. When the eviction was effectively carried out, the Barcelona City Council arranged storage services for the author and a temporary housing solution for the family until the author decided to move to a new property. The social services have been notified by the Court and have painstakingly followed up on the situation of the author and her son, making all available resources available to them. With regard to the author, the State Party argues that, consistent with the information provided in the factual background, she has been notified of all the legal proceedings and appeared in court once she was granted free legal aid. The author is currently occupying a dwelling despite the offer of temporary housing made by the social services of the Barcelona City Council. The State Party indicates that the authorities have made every effort to assist the author and her son, both socially and in terms of finding alternative housing suitable to their needs. The State Party concludes that the communication is manifestly without merit, since the author’s situation and her own actions prove that she has not been deprived of any right under the Covenant.
- For further details, see El Korrichi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/76/D/188/2020), para. 4.5. ↩
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1 In her comments of 25 July 2022, the author claims that she was evicted by the authorities using anti-riot equipment, on 17 September 2021, in disregard of the Committee’s request for the granting of interim measures.
5.2 The author states that she is currently being given temporary accommodation by some neighbours. She states that she is awaiting a response regarding a disability application that she submitted owing to her state of health.
5.3 The author alleges that the eviction was carried out in bad faith by the municipal social services, which had issued a report to the courts stating that they had no alternative for the family, yet they then appeared at the eviction offering two months of temporary accommodation in a university residence. The offer of this alternative, which lacks any hint of dignity, given the family’s health circumstances, was interpreted by the Court as the existence of a housing alternative. This then allowed for the eviction to be effectively carried out, using anti-riot equipment that also penalized the people who had shown solidarity with the family’s 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 or not the communication is admissible.
6.2 The Committee notes the State Party’s claim that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as she submitted her communication prior to the execution of the eviction and did not challenge the eviction orders issued on 23 September 2020, 10 November 2020 and 1 July 2021. 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.10 The Committee notes that the principal complaint put forward by the author in her communication is that the eviction of 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.11 In this regard, the Committee notes that, as it appears from the case file, the author requested the suspension of the eviction orders on at least two occasions, and that these requests were rejected. It further notes that the author also filed an appeal for the reconsideration of the order setting the date of eviction as 17 September 2021 – an appeal that was rejected by order of 20 October 2021, more than a month after the execution of the eviction, as it did not have suspensive effect. The Committee considers that appeals for the reconsideration of other orders would not have been effective because they also would have lacked suspensive effect. Similarly, the Committee notes that the communication was submitted after the author had been served a number of eviction orders, and that its submission after the execution of the eviction would have led to the materialization of the violations alleged before the Committee. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication.
6.3 The Committee also notes the State Party’s argument concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies that the author did not apply for public housing after her eviction. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the information, which was not refuted by the State Party, that because the author was occupying commercial premises, the law did not allow the author to apply for public housing. The Committee considers that the alleged violation had already taken place once the eviction had happened, and it is therefore outside the scope of the present communication. The Committee therefore cannot conclude that the author has not exercised due diligence in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to find alternative housing and, consequently, article 3 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication.
6.4 The Committee notes that the communication meets the other admissibility requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and, accordingly, declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits.
C. Committee’s consideration of the merits
Facts and legal issues
7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication taking into account all the information provided to it in accordance with article 8 of the Optional Protocol.
7.2 In the light of the relevant facts and the parties’ submissions, the Committee considers that the question that the communication raises and that it must resolve is whether the State Party has taken all reasonable steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure the realization of the right of the author and her son to adequate housing, enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To this end, the Committee will first examine whether the eviction process and the enforcement of the decision in respect of the author and her son respected the safeguards established by the Covenant. The Committee will then determine whether the State Party complied with its duty to provide persons in vulnerable situations with alternative housing or, failing that, whether it took other measures to the maximum of its available resources.
7.3 In order to answer this question, the Committee will first refer to the standards relating to protection against forced evictions in the context of the right to adequate housing, as consolidated in its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain,12 including the requirement for an eviction to respect the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, and the duty of the judge to weigh up the relevant rights in reviewing any eviction decision. In El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, the Committee also sets out a number of procedural safeguards that should be respected in eviction procedures, including the provision of an opportunity for genuine consultation on alternative accommodation with affected persons and, if a lack of resources means that there are no viable alternatives, requiring the administrative authorities to present the available options with a view to ensuring that the eviction will not leave anyone homeless.13
Proportionality test, the weighing of rights in the eviction, consultation with the author and disproportionate impacts
7.4 The Committee will proceed to determine whether the authorities considered the proportionality of the objective of the eviction to its consequences for the persons evicted, including by weighing the benefits of the measure – in this case, protecting the right to property of the owner of the premises – against its possible consequences for the rights of the evicted persons14 in the specific circumstances of the case.
- López Albán et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/37/2018), para. 11.5. ↩
7.5 The Committee refers to its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, in which it set out a series of circumstances that must be assessed when analysing the proportionality of an eviction, including: (a) the availability of adequate alternative housing; (b) the personal circumstances of the occupants and their dependants and how these circumstances may lead to one or several situations of vulnerability; (c) the cooperation of the occupants with the authorities in seeking suitable solutions; and (d) the distinction between properties belonging to individuals who need them as a home or source of income and properties belonging to banks, financial institutions or other entities.15
- El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, para. 10.2; and El Mourabit Ouazizi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/72/D/133/2019). ↩
7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author informed the Court of her situation of vulnerability and inability to pay the amounts claimed. The Committee notes that the eviction order contained in the judgment of 27 July 2020 was issued without an analysis of the impact of the eviction on the author and her son, taking into account the family’s vulnerable circumstances and the absence of alternative housing, as reflected in the report of the social services. In the light of the specific circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that proper consideration of the proportionality of the eviction would have taken into account the author’s socioeconomic vulnerability; the author’s son’s degree of disability of 54 per cent; the particular effects of the eviction on the author as an unemployed female head of household responsible for a child with a disability, without the wherewithal for adequate housing or other viable alternatives; the benefits of the measure at the time, in this case, the protection of the right to property of the person owning the premises; the author’s inability to apply for social housing because she was occupying commercial premises; the lack of availability of social housing from the relevant administrative authorities; and the existence of alternative means of resolving the problem.
7.7 Based on the foregoing, the Committee notes that it does not appear from the judgment of the Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 29 that the author’s son’s degree of disability of 54 per cent was taken into account when the eviction was ordered. In this regard, there is no evidence that the court in question undertook a specific analysis of how an eviction could affect the author’s son or what would be the best decision for him.
7.8 The Committee notes that the Court also failed to take into account the author’s particular situation, insofar as she is a single mother and head of household, caring for a son with a disability, and the disproportionate impact that the eviction would have on her, given the discrimination that women can face, the lack of equal opportunities for access to adequate housing and employment, and the share, larger than that of men, of the caregiving burden that they bear.16
- Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain, para. 12.3. ↩
7.9 In order to assess the author’s situation, the Court should have made arrangements for genuine and effective consultation with her and should have requested the administrative authorities to provide information on any social housing available and on her socioeconomic situation. The Committee notes that the author filed several requests for the suspension of the eviction before the competent judicial authorities, alleging a situation of particular vulnerability. However, despite the various requests for a stay of eviction and the appeals filed by the author, the Committee considers that there has been no evidence that any genuine and effective judicial consultation took place with a view to studying alternatives to eviction.
Duty of States to provide alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to the maximum of available resources
7.10 The Committee recalls the standards relating to the duty of States to provide alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to the maximum of available resources. It also recalls that all alternative housing must be adequate, including with regard to security of tenure. Nevertheless, States Parties may be able demonstrate that, despite having made every effort, to the maximum of available resources, it has been impossible to offer permanent alternative housing to an evicted person in need of alternative housing, in which case use may be made of temporary emergency housing that does not meet all the requirements of adequate alternative housing. However, States Parties must endeavour to ensure that the temporary accommodation protects the human dignity of the persons evicted, meets all safety and security requirements and does not become a permanent solution, but is rather a step towards obtaining adequate housing. It must also take account of the right of members of a family not to be separated17 and to enjoy a reasonable level of privacy.18
7.11 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party did not provide the author and her son with alternative housing, since, according to the author’s claims, which have not been refuted by the State Party, the regulations in force made it impossible for occupants of premises to apply for public housing. The Committee notes that they were offered alternative accommodation for two months, which, according to the author’s claims, which were not refuted by the State Party, did not meet the minimum requirements of dignity, as they would have had to share a room and a bathroom.
7.12 The Committee also recalls that States Parties may be able demonstrate that, despite not having been able to directly provide alternative housing to evicted persons, they have taken measures, to the maximum of their available resources, to provide social assistance to such persons in order to promote their social reintegration and facilitate their access to adequate housing. In this regard, the Committee notes in particular the financial assistance received by the author since 19 May 2020, under the guaranteed minimum income scheme, of €780.87 per month. However, while acknowledging the importance of the social assistance measures taken to support the author and her son as people in socially vulnerable situations, the Committee considers that the State Party has not provided information demonstrating how this assistance constituted measures, to the maximum of its available resources, intended to, inter alia, facilitate the author’s access to adequate housing.
7.13 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the State Party has not demonstrated that it has made every possible effort, using all available resources, to realize, as a matter of urgency, the right to housing of the author and her son, who has a disability, both of whom were in a situation of dire vulnerability.
Interim measures and eviction of the author and her son
8.1 On 10 September 2021, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State Party to suspend the eviction of the author and her son while the communication was being considered or, alternatively, to grant them adequate housing following genuine and effective consultation with the author.
8.2 The Committee notes that, according to its jurisprudence,19 the adoption of interim measures pursuant to article 5 of the Optional Protocol is vital to the Committee’s fulfilment of the responsibility entrusted to it under the Optional Protocol,20 as the reason for the existence of interim measures is, inter alia, to preserve the integrity of the process, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanism for protecting Covenant rights when there is a risk of irreparable damage.21 It also recalls that, as established in its guidelines on interim measures, any State Party that does not respect the interim measures requested by the Committee is in breach of its obligation to respect in good faith the individual communications procedure established in the Optional Protocol, since failure to respect the interim measures makes it difficult for any future Views to reverse the harm caused to the victims.22
- S.S.R. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/51/2018), paras. 7.6 and 7.7. ↩
- Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1. ↩
- See, mutatis mutandis, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (applications No. 46827/99 and No. 46951/99), judgment of 4 February 2005, para. 128; and Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 6.1. ↩
- See the Committee’s guidelines on interim measures, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr/inquiry-procedure. ↩
8.3 The Committee notes that, on 17 September 2021, the author and her son were evicted despite the Committee’s having requested the State Party to adopt interim measures and without having been granted adequate alternative housing following genuine consultation with her.
8.4 In the absence of any explanation by the State Party for its failure to honour the request for interim measures, the Committee finds that the State Party is in breach of article 5 of the Optional Protocol.
D. Conclusion
9.1 On the basis of all the information provided and in the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee finds that the eviction of the author and her son without a proper assessment of proportionality by the judicial authorities, including consideration of the disproportionate impact that the eviction could have on the author and her son, who has a disability, and without a guarantee, as part of the procedure, of adequate consultation, together with the lack of alternative housing and the State Party’s failure to provide evidence that it had taken all appropriate measures to the maximum of its resources, constituted a violation of the right to adequate housing, under the terms of the Covenant, in respect of the author and her son.
9.2 The Committee, acting under article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State Party has incurred international responsibility for violating the right of the author and her son under article 11 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee also finds that the State Party violated article 5 of the Optional Protocol. Consequently, the State Party has an obligation to take the necessary measures to comply with this decision.
The State Party has an obligation to provide the author and her son with an effective remedy, in particular by: (a) reassessing their needs, if they are not currently in adequate housing, with a view to providing them with public housing or taking another measure that would enable them to live in adequate housing, bearing in mind the criteria set out in the present Views; (b) awarding the author financial compensation for the violations of their rights; and (c) reimbursing the author for the legal costs reasonably incurred in submitting the present communication, at both the domestic and international levels.
The Committee recalls that, in conformity with the State Party’s international obligations, the State Party should take all steps necessary to guarantee the non-repetition of similar violations in the future. The State Party is therefore obliged to ensure that its legislation and the enforcement thereof are consistent with the international standards set out in the Covenant. In particular, the State Party should:
(a) Ensure that its normative framework allows persons in respect of whom an eviction order is issued and who might consequently be at risk of destitution or of violation of their Covenant rights, including persons who are occupying a dwelling without legal title, to challenge the decision before a judicial or other impartial and independent authority with the power to order the cessation of the violation and to provide an effective remedy so that such authorities can examine the proportionality of the measure; and to consider, where appropriate, the best interests of the child and the disproportionate impact of evictions on women, especially women who are heads of households with minor children or those who provide care to family members in a situation of dependency, and whose financial situation is unstable;
(b) Take the necessary measures to ensure that evictions affecting persons who lack the wherewithal to obtain alternative housing take place only within the framework of proceedings involving genuine and effective consultation with the persons concerned in which available alternative housing (whether belonging to the State or made available by the relevant State agencies, including those consulted during judicial proceedings) is assessed and only after the State Party has taken all essential steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that evicted persons can gain access to alternative housing, especially in cases involving families, households headed by single parents – women in particular – older persons, children, persons with disabilities or other persons in vulnerable situations. If the group to be evicted includes children, the proceedings must guarantee their right to be heard;
(c) To adopt the necessary measures to put an end to the practice of automatically excluding from lists of applicants for housing all persons who find themselves occupying a property illegally, because they are in a situation of necessity, so that all such persons have equal access to the social housing stock, eliminating any unreasonable condition that might exclude persons at risk of destitution;
(d) Take the necessary measures to resolve the lack of coordination between court decisions, adopted in proceedings of any kind, and the actions of social service providers, which that can result in an evicted person’s being left without adequate accommodation;
(e) Develop and implement, in coordination with the autonomous communities and to the maximum of its available resources, a comprehensive plan to guarantee the right to adequate housing for low-income persons, in keeping with the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (1991). This plan should provide for the necessary resources, measures, time frames and evaluation criteria to guarantee these individuals’ right to housing in a reasonable, timely and measurable manner;
(f) Establish a protocol for complying with requests for interim measures made by the Committee and inform all relevant authorities of the need to grant such requests in order to ensure the integrity of the procedure;
(g) Establish follow-up mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of reparation measures and to prevent the recurrence of similar situations.
In accordance with article 9 (2) of the Optional Protocol and rule 21 (1) of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, the State Party is requested to submit to the Committee, within a period of six months, a written response, including information on the measures taken in follow-up to the Views and recommendations of the Committee. The State Party is also requested to publish the Views of the Committee and to distribute them widely, in an accessible format, so that they reach all sectors of the population.