The collateral damage caused by the sale of public housing to an investment fund by the Government of the Community of Madrid has reached the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). One of the victims of this operation, Z.D. (47 years old) – living in Navalcarnero with his wife and two daughters, is a promoter of demand. After the change of ownership, the employer was sued for eviction “for satisfying the inability of the state to increase the rent of an apartment as a result of the sale of his house to a private company”, collects a text prepared by the Strasbourg court. Case and which elDiario.es had access to.
In October 2017, its owner, Investment Fund Encasa Cibeles, the company that owns 97% of Goldman Sachs, launched an eviction lawsuit against ZD for non-payment. Four years earlier, the Madrid Society had sold 2,935 brothels – including the plaintiff’s house – to the company for € 201 million. Months after the commencement of proceedings against the NavalCarneo lessee, in May 2018, the Dispute-Administrative Court issued the first counterclaim to 29 regional governments and overturned the real estate operation promoted by CEO Ignacio Gonzalez (PP).
This decision opened the door for the repeal of the ordinance authorizing the sale of 2,935 properties. The autonomous government has since linked the judiciary to strikes before reaching the Supreme Court. None of the courts and tribunals have considered the argument of the regional executive to make money by selling thousands of social housing in the wake of the previous economic crisis.
Once this decision was carried out, the Community of Madrid insisted on ensuring that the sentence would oblige them to “pay only [único] Plaintiff “, Rachid Buiku, a resident of ZD, as repeated by official sources from the Ministry of Housing at the end of 2020. In February 2021, the Court of Justice again challenged the regional government and ruled that the invalidity of the operation affected the entire property.
In parallel with this process, an eviction lawsuit was filed by Encasa Cibeles against ZD, according to the documents provided by the State Prosecutor’s Office, citing non-payment of rent. The proceedings began in October 2017, but the court only upheld the appeal in July 2019 and agreed to terminate the lease and order the aggrieved party to pay € 14,420 in “unpaid overdue rent”. By that time, the first ruling had already been issued, reflecting the possibility that the public would have to return the sold houses and its tenants would change ownership, as this eventually happened.
The plaintiff arrived at the social housing in 2011. The public entity that manages this property, the Madrid Housing Institute (IVIMA), granted him a 90% reduction, for which he had to pay the Madrid community 44.74 euros per month. With the change of owner in 2013 and the loss of the public character of the house, “his monthly rent became 393.21 euros,” explains his lawyer Cesar Pinto in a letter sent to Strasbourg in October 2020.
Three years earlier, the applicant had received a social income of € 662.89, according to his defense, which also argues that after the change of owner, “the economic vulnerability of this family increased and, nevertheless, the society of Madrid did. Do not take any additional measures to alleviate it. ”
“Due to the new situation caused by the sale of social housing, which the plaintiff had leased to the public administration in favor of the merchant, his family was unable to pay the rental income,” Pinto continues. According to the initial report sent to Strasbourg by the State Prosecutor’s Office, “since December 2013, the plaintiff has stopped paying part of the rent owed to Encasa Cibeles.” In 2017, a complaint was filed about non-payment.
Nevertheless, and despite the fact that he was released, the plaintiff and his family continue to occupy the house. “I am convinced that Strasbourg gives us a reason,” said the victim. After the public took responsibility for the 1,700 homes that were still owned by the fund, ZD insists that the public administration does not explain how they can start managing rent with them. elDiario.es has contacted the Regional Housing Council, but has not received a response.
In the light of the facts identified, the applicant alleges violations of two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: the sixth, on the right to a fair trial, and the fourteenth, on the prohibition of discrimination.
Among the actions for which the court sought an explanation from the parties, it also asks whether the eviction was justified “adequately” in view of the plaintiff’s complaints about the invalidity of the sale. The State Representative has several positions on this issue. On the one hand, the government’s legal team ensures that in the “letter against eviction” the defense of the aggrieved party “did not explicitly state that the sale operation” was void. On the other hand, these attorneys emphasize that the employer did not question the fund’s “hired condition” until it took legal effect, even though the owner had changed years ago.
In one of the documents, dated June and sent by elDiario.es, the state prosecutor’s office goes so far as to say that the invalidity of the operation did not extend to “all houses for sale”, although in February of the same year the Court of Justice had already ruled that the 2013 sale 2935 Social House and not only the plaintiff in this case, a resident of ZD in Navalcarnero and was also represented by Pinto.
Another issue raised by the Strasbourg court concerns the fact that the applicant was “obliged under Spanish law to transfer the entire debt” to the Fund in order to appeal the eviction decision under Article 449 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (LEC). This section stipulates that appeals are not allowed in “run-in” proceedings unless the person submitting them proves that he or she has “satisfied the rent due and that the person who has to pay in advance under the contract”. In this appeal, Pinto argued before Strasbourg that they had considered “a preliminary ruling on the management of 2935.”
Asked whether the plaintiff had a “right to a fair trial”, lawyers for the Ministry of Justice argued that Article 449 of the Code was protected by the Constitutional Court and that its contents guaranteed that anyone appealing against the eviction order should be “renewed in rent payment – and for the rest Continue to pay it when the complaint is considered – as it occupies the use of the property. “
In addition, the State Prosecutor also took a position on the right to equality under Article 14 of the Convention, as the plaintiff considers that “the measure imposed by the session is discriminatory, given that the appeal is against the eviction sentence. [depende] “A person’s economic capabilities,” they added in a report sent to the ECHR, in which Spanish lawyers argue that the above-mentioned part of the Spanish civil procedure “is an measure that has a legitimate aim, namely protection. On the legal interests of the lessor. “
Source: El Diario
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
