Eviction of Roma from camps on land that was not their property and concurrent provision of accommodation. Non-infringement of family life.
JUDGEMENT
Caldaras and Lupu v. France (no. 13561/15), Ciurar and others v. France (no. 35697/15), Stefan and others v. France (no. 36779/16), Stan v. France (no. 41969/16), Sisuand others v. France (no. 45871/16) and Margoi and others v. France (no. 72596/16), of 08.12.2022
see here
see here
see here
SUMMARY
Obligation of the state to provide housing only to particularly vulnerable groups. Proportionality of intervention.
The six appeals concerned evictions of Roma families from camps in various locations in Paris.
The Court noted from the outset that the authorities’ interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family lives was in accordance with the law and had pursued legitimate objectives to protect health and public safety and to protect the rights and freedoms of others, in this case the property rights of the landowners.
The Court reiterated that neither Article 8 nor the case-law of the ECtHR recognises as such a right to housing housing and that any positive obligation to house homeless persons can therefore be limited. An obligation to provide housing for particularly vulnerable persons could arise under Article 8 only in exceptional cases.
As to the necessity of the measures at issue, the Court held in any event that living in the camps did not allow normal and family life, given the lack of hygiene in the camps and the dangerous nature of the infrastructure.
Regarding the evictions, the ECHR found that the procedure had taken into account the applicants’ vulnerability and resulted in an assessment of the proportionality of the intervention, in accordance with the requirements of Article 8. It rejected the allegations as manifestly unfounded alleging infringement of that provision.
Regarding the complaints raised by the applicants under other articles of the Convention, the Court noted that the applicants had not exhausted their domestic remedies and rejected the complaints as inadmissible.
PROVISIONS
Article 8
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants are Romanian nationals belonging to the Roma community who lived in camps consisting of makeshift houses in the Paris area.
Caldaras and Lupu v. France (no. 13561/15)
The applicants, Mr Stefan Caldaras and Mr Vasile Lupu, are two Romanian nationals born in 1977 and 1964 living in Santmartin and Budapest.
The application concerned the eviction from a camp located in Porte de Paris in Saint-Denis, on land belonging to the Plaine de France Development Agency (EPAPF), where the applicants and their families lived.
In accordance with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (non-discrimination), the applicants complained that their eviction from the camp, without providing alternative housing, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment based on their ethnic origin. They argued that, for the same reasons, there was also a violation of their rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
Relying on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together, they complained that no suspensive remedy was available to them to challenge the eviction decision.
Ciurar and others v. France (no. 35697/15)
The applicants are seven Romanian nationals who were born between 1979 and 1993 and reside in Bobigny.
The appeal concerned the eviction from a camp located on Avenue du 8 mai 1945 in Le Bourget, into state property, where the applicants and their families lived.
According to Article 3, the applicants complained about their eviction from the camp, without any alternative that provided shelter, amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. They also alleged a violation of their rights under Article 8 for the same reasons.
Stefan and others v. France (no. 36779/16)
The applicants are 29 Romanian nationals born between 1953 and 1997 living in Bobigny.
The appeal concerned the eviction from a camp known as the “Coignet shack” settlement in Saint-Denis, created on land owned by the public company (SEM) Plaine Commune Développement, where the applicants and their families lived.
According to Article 8, one of the applicants complained that her eviction from the settlement violated her right to respect for her family life and her home. In accordance with Article 34 (right of the individual to an individual appeal), all the applicants argued that the government, by carrying out the eviction, despite the interim measure indicated by the Court, had prevented the effective exercise of their right to individual petition.
Stan v. France (no. 41969/16)
The applicant, Ms Silvia-Clara Stan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Noisiel.
The action concerned the eviction from a camp located in Champs-sur-Marne, on land belonging to the Marne-la-Vallée Development Agency (EPA), where the applicant lived with her family.
In accordance with Article 3 taken only and in conjunction with Article 14, the applicant complained that eviction from the camp without alternative housing constituted inhuman and degrading treatment on the basis of her ethnic origin. She claimed that, for the same reason, her rights under Article 8 had also been infringed. In accordance with Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, read in conjunction with Article 13, it complained in particular that it did not have an appeal to challenge the eviction decision.
Sisu and others v. France (no. 45871/16)
The applicants are 9 Romanian nationals born between 1957 and 1996 living in Bobigny.
The action concerned the eviction from a camp on the site of a decommissioned railway in Paris (petite ceinture) belonging to SNCF Réseau, a public industrial and commercial agency (EPIC), where the applicants lived with their families.
In accordance with Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, the applicants complained that they were expelled from the camp without providing alternative accommodation, which constituted inhuman and degrading treatment based on their ethnic origin. They also accused of violating their rights under Article 8, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, for the same reasons and under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 13, complained that they had no suspensive remedy to challenge the eviction decision.
Margoi and others v. France (no. 72596/16)
The applicants are 27 Romanian nationals born between 1973 and 1998 living in Bobigny.
The appeal concerned the eviction from a camp located on rue Sacco et Vanzetti in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, on land owned by the company Promo Brico, where the applicants lived with their families.
The applicants complained in accordance with Article 3 that their eviction without any alternative to providing housing amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They also alleged a violation of their rights under Article 8 for the same reasons. In accordance with Articles 3 and 13 as a whole, they complained that they had no suspensive remedy to challenge the eviction.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Caldaras and Lupu v. France (no. 13561/15)
The Court noted from the outset that the intervention was in accordance with the law. The eviction had been ordered by the Court of Appeal, which had found the existence of a manifestly illegal nuisance under national law due to the illegal occupation of the property without any title. In view of the nuisance and dangers created by the camp infrastructure, the Court went on to find that the intervention had pursued the legitimate objectives of protecting health and public safety, in addition to protecting the rights and freedoms of others, in this case EPAPF’s property rights. Finally, as regards the need to intervene, the Court referred, for a summary of the principles applicable, to the judgments in Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, Winterstein and others v. France and Hirtu and others v. France.
In the present case, the Court noted that the applicants had occupied the site illegally without any legal title. Therefore, they could not claim that they had a legitimate expectation to remain there.
The Court noted that the applicants’ arguments regarding the proportionality of the interference, which arose in the internal proceedings, had been examined in detail by the Court of Appeal before the eviction. That court had adequately reasoned in response to their arguments, before finding that the conditions under which the land was occupied clearly did not allow for normal family life, given the lack of hygiene in the settlement and the dangerous nature of the infrastructure.
The Court concluded that the eviction procedure had the effect that the assessment of the proportionality of the applicants’ intervention satisfied the requirements of Article 8.
The Court reiterated that neither Article 8 nor the case-law of the Court of Justice recognises as such a right to provide housing and that any positive obligation to provide homelessness must therefore be limited. An obligation to provide housing for particularly vulnerable persons could arise under Article 8 only in exceptional cases.
The Court noted that the authorities had provided emergency accommodation to the first applicant in accordance with the undertaking given by the government in the applicants’ application for an injunction dated 16 April 2014. As regards the second applicant, the Court accepted the Government’s explanation that hotel rooms could only be offered to those occupants who were present when the camp was dismantled.
In those circumstances, the Court held that the authorities had taken into account the particular vulnerability of the applicants due to the fact that they belonged to a minority. It also noted that the applicants had not applied for social housing or undertaken any effort to that end.
The Court therefore held that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded and should be rejected.
Ciurar and others v. France (no. 35697/15)
The Court noted that the applicants had occupied the camp illegally without any title and therefore, could not claim that they had a justified expectation to remain there.
Regarding the assessment of the proportionality of the intervention by the national courts, the Court noted that the applicants’ arguments had been examined in detail by the judge before the eviction, and that it had provided sufficient reasoning in response to them. The judge had weighed up the competing interests before concluding that the applicants had not demonstrated the existence of an emergency situation outweighing the obligation to ensure their safety and health, in particular that of children.
The Court concluded that the eviction procedure resulted in an assessment of the proportionality of the interference with the rights of applicants meeting the requirements of Article 8.
Finally, the Court noted that the authorities had undertaken, at the stage of the application, to apply Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, to provide emergency housing to any vulnerable persons present during the dismantling of the site.
The Court therefore held that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded and should be rejected.
Stefan and others v. France (no. 36779/16)
The Court upheld the complaint under Article 8 only in respect of the applicant No. 24. He noted that his arguments on the proportionality of the intervention, which had been put forward before the judge, had been examined in detail by the latter before the eviction. The judge had provided a very detailed and adequate justification by granting eight months to evacuate the settlement, and had specifically referred to the fact that the inhabitants belonged to a socially disadvantaged group and their particular needs. The Court concluded that the applicant no. Amendment No 24 had the benefit, in the context of the eviction procedure, of an assessment of the proportionality of the intervention satisfying the requirements of Article 8.
The Court noted that the authorities had provided emergency accommodation for vulnerable people present during the dismantling of the site. They had booked accommodation for the applicant no. 24 in a hotel in Pantin, eight kilometers from the camp, but had not shown up at the hotel. In addition, the Court noted that the applicant had not applied for social housing or made every effort to do so in order to find a permanent solution to her housing needs.
The Court therefore held that the action under Article 8 of the ECHR in respect of applicant No. Amendment No 24 was manifestly unfounded and had to be rejected.
Stan v. France (no. 41969/16)
The Court observed that the authorities had taken many steps to ensure that the applicant and the other occupants of the camp were not left homeless. It considered that the authorities had taken into account the applicant’s particular vulnerability due to the fact that she belonged to a social minority, and highlighted her repeated refusals to accept offers of accommodation. The Court also noted that the applicant had not applied for social housing or made any attempt to do so.
The Court held that the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded and should be rejected.
Sisu and others v. France (no. 45871/16)
The Court noted that the applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 had not proved that they were staying in the camp at the relevant time. Further, they had not filed any Appeals.
The Court noted that the only appeal filed by the applicant with No. Amendment No 5 was against the prefect’s decision to grant assistance from the police. He agreed with the government that such an appeal could not challenge the actual order to evict the camp but only concerned the arrangements for its implementation. The action was therefore inadmissible on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
As to the applicant No. 4, its arguments on the proportionality of the intervention had been examined in detail by the judge, who had provided sufficient reasoning taking into account in particular ‘the fundamental right to housing’ and the particular vulnerability of residents, which had been exacerbated by the outbreak of tuberculosis. Although the evictions from the camp had taken place before the expiry of the deadline granted by the judge responsible for enforcing the decisions, the Court noted that an ex ante assessment of the proportionality of the intervention had been carried out. He concluded that the applicant no. Amendment No 4 has had the benefit, in the context of the eviction procedure, of an assessment of the proportionality of the intervention which meets the requirements of Article 8.
In addition, the Court noted that the applicant had not applied for social housing. The Court therefore held that the action under Article 8 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded and dismissed it.
Margoi and others v. France (no. 72596/16)
The Court noted that the applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 had not challenged the official notice of September 14, 2016 requiring them to evacuate the site within 48 hours. This part of the action was therefore inadmissible on the ground that domestic remedies were not exhausted.
As to the applicant No. 16, the Court noted that its arguments concerning the proportionality of the intervention put forward in the internal proceedings had been examined in detail, prior to that eviction, by the Judge of the Court of First Instance, who had given sufficient grounds for reply before ruling that the inhabitants of the site had not proved the existence of an emergency situation. The judge had issued his ruling after weighing the severity of the impact of the eviction of the occupants from the camp against the risk to their health and safety if they continued to stay there. Therefore, the eviction procedure entailed an assessment of the proportionality of the interference with the applicant’s rights meeting the requirements of Article 8.
The Court noted that the authorities had undertaken, at the stage of the application for interim measures under Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to provide emergency housing to any vulnerable person present when the camp was dismantled. Eleven people were actually the beneficiaries of emergency accommodation. The applicant was not among them. First, the Court noted the care with which the national courts, in which the applicant had lodged interim measures, had examined her individual situation and assessed her vulnerability in the light of the presence of her two young children. They took the view that the applicant was not in a particularly vulnerable situation entailing, exceptionally, a positive obligation to provide it with accommodation. Second, the Court noted that the applicant did not appeal against the interim order. Finally, the Court noted that the applicant had not applied for social housing or made any attempt to do so in order to find a permanent solution to her housing needs.
The Court therefore held that the complaint under Article 8 in respect of applicant No. Amendment No 16 was manifestly unfounded and had to be rejected.
Stefan and others v. France (no. 36779/16)
With regard to the appeal under Article 34 concerning the alleged failure of a Contracting State to comply with an interim measure, the Court observed that it had indicated an interim measure to the Government on 6 July 2016 at 12.35 p.m., while the eviction had been scheduled for the same day at 13.00, as the Government had informed the Court at 18.55 the previous day. The court accepted the government’s explanation that it was not possible to stop the dismantling of the camp twenty-five minutes before the start of the operation. The Court held that in the present case, the Government had faced an objective obstacle preventing it from suspending the execution of the eviction.
The Court noted the fact that, in parallel with the dissolution of the camp, all vulnerable people on the site had been offered accommodation. The government was informed in good time of the progress of the operation and the implementation of the safeguards they had announced. Therefore, the applicants could not validly argue that the Government had not complied with the interim measure indicated by the Court This part of the action was dismissed.
Stan v. France (no. 41969/16)
With regard to appeals under Article 3, which are taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 and under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14, the ECtHR agreed with the government’s assessment that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies, contrary to the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
As regards the complaint under Article 13, even assuming that the applicant had a questionable complaint under Article 3 or Article 8 and therefore Article 13 was applicable, the Court noted that the applicant had the opportunity to appeal and that his situation had been carefully examined. It followed that that part of the action was manifestly unfounded and should be dismissed.
Sisu and others v. France (no. 45871/16)
Regarding the complaints under Article 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and on the basis of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14, the Court held that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted as the applicant No. Amendment No 4 had not submitted its complaints to the competent national authorities, even on the merits.
As to the action under Article 13 of the Convention, even assuming that there was a questionable complaint under Article 3 or Article 8 and that Article 13 was therefore applicable, the Court noted that the applicant no. Amendment No 4 was able to make use of a combination of relevant remedies and that his situation had been carefully examined. As the Court has repeatedly held, even a single appeal did not in itself fully satisfy the requirements of Article 13, all the remedies available under national law could do so. Therefore, this part of the application was manifestly unfounded and had to be rejected.
Margoi and others v. France (no. 72596/16)
The Court held that the complaint under Article 3 was inadmissible as regards all the applicants, on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
As regards Article 13, the applicants’ appeal that the remedy available under domestic law for a stay of execution of the decision was irrelevant, since the applicants no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 had not made use of this remedy and the applicant No. 16 had not raised the Article 3 complaint in the context of its appeal. It followed that their complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 was manifestly unfounded and should be rejected.
