The Supreme Court has endorsed the eviction of a vulnerable family that had occupied social housing. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber has rejected their appeal against the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia that allowed them to remain at home during the state of alarm, but not beyond.
The family wanted the Supreme Court to revoke the eviction order, alleging their vulnerable situation and that the necessary measures for their protection had not been adopted, particularly due to the presence of a minor. The family was made up of a man with a permanent disability pension of 1,179 euros per month, his pregnant partner and a son under one year old, diagnosed with haemophilia.
Initially, a court in Huelva -the house is in Lepe- authorized the Andalusia Housing and Rehabilitation Agency to enter the publicly-promoted house that had been occupied by the family without legal title to it. After an appeal, the TSJ gave them more time given the exceptional situation of the pandemic. Now the Supreme confirms the expulsion.
The ruling of the High Court highlights that the appellants illegally occupied “public housing intended to cover the housing needs of those who request it on a regular basis.” Therefore, its illegal occupation “prevents the Administration from granting it to whoever justifies a greater need after due verification of the circumstances of the applicants, who do not necessarily have to be the appellants.”
For the Chamber, acting in this way “means taking justice for themselves directly and with contempt for those who may be in a similar or more unfavorable situation, both due to the presence of minors or people with disabilities and due to lack of income that, although limited, they do have recurring ones”.
The sentence, for which Judge Eduardo Espín has been a rapporteur, analyzes the data contained in the appealed sentence on the entry authorization, including the report of the City Council services where the appellants reside, from which a risk situation is not deduced social exclusion of the family, taking into account, among other data, the recognized public disability pension and the cost of living in said municipality.
Likewise, it is stated in the eviction file that it began in 2018 and that five years elapsed until the notification of the appealed sentence, without the occupants proving at that time that they had sought “an alternative housing solution adjusted to legality”.
The Supreme Court’s decision argues that the specific situation in which the occupants would find themselves if the eviction were carried out during the state of alarm was taken into account and therefore a measure was adopted that would allow a solution to be found.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
