The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a vulnerable family that occupied social housing and has now been ordered to be evicted due to their refusal to leave the house. The couple should have left their home in the middle of the pandemic, but the state of alarm suspended the measure, which has finally been carried out.
For the Chamber, "it 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 the absence of income that, although limited They do have recurring ones.
The conditions of the family are clearly vulnerable: 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.
However, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the high court cannot agree with them for various reasons. The first of these is that the house they occupied is intended for social housing for vulnerable families who also need it.
According to the magistrates, there are families who have gone through the legal channel and who may be in more vulnerable conditions without any type of income and who are being deprived of a home because another family has occupied it. Thus, the Chamber indicates that the illegal occupation prevents the Administration from granting public housing to those who justify the greatest need.
This matter comes from a Huelva Court, which ordered the eviction of the family, although the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia suspended it while the state of alarm was in force.
The Chamber of instance assessed that it was a borderline case and that the conflicting rights had to be weighed. It considered that in a pandemic, the situation of vulnerability of a family with a minor was greater and therefore agreed to suspend the execution of the entry into the home while the state of alarm was in force.
The family then went to the Supreme Court and requested that the eviction order from the house be annulled, understanding that the TSJ had not considered the situation of the minors affected by the eviction and that the necessary measures for their protection had not been adopted.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court considers that the Court of Instance did apply the principle of proportionality required by jurisprudence because it assessed the situation of minors and therefore decided to suspend the eviction precisely to avoid the lack of protection of vulnerable people.
The Chamber analyzes the data contained in the appealed ruling on the entry authorization, including the report from the City Council services where the appellants reside, from which a situation of risk of social exclusion of the family is not deduced, 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 5 years elapsed until the notification of the appealed sentence, without the occupants having accredited seeking an alternative housing solution adjusted to legality.
The sentence 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.
The other argument of the court is that this family illegally occupied public housing intended to meet 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."
