Non enforced housing court decision. The right to bring an action for the non-enforcement of the judgment and the existence of favorable case-law on compensation. The application is inadmissible.
Bouhamla v. France 18.07.2019 (no. 31798/16)
The case concerned the enforcement of a final judicial decision granting housing to the applicant
under the law on the enforceable right to housing. The applicant was ultimately rehoused but he
failed to apply to the administrative courts for compensation in respect of the period of one year
and 11 months in which the judgment in his favour had remained unenforced. The Court thus found
that he had not exhausted domestic remedies.
The ECtHR held that because of the right to bring such a claim and even with a significant probability of a favorable outcome and that it had not been pursued, the applicant had not exhausted his domestic remedies, as he could have been entitled to a sum of money afterwards, and of the relevant decision. The application is inadmissible.
The applicant is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Paris.
Being married and the father of three children, born in 2009, 2013 and 2015, he is in receipt of the
disabled adult’s allowance. The case concerned the non-enforcement of a court decision to rehouse
From 2007 until 31 January 2017 Mr Bouhamla lived with his family in his brother-in-law’s flat of
28 sq.m. On 7 March 2014 he filed a complaint with the Paris mediation board seeking an offer of
In a decision of 13 June 2014 the board acknowledged that his was a priority case and stated that he
should be rehoused urgently in a dwelling commensurate with his needs and capacities. The decision
was transmitted to the prefect of Paris.
On 23 December 2014, stating that he had not received any offer of rehousing within the statutory
period of six months from the board’s decision, he asked the Paris Administrative Court to order the
State to allocate him new housing.
On 3 March 2015 the Paris Administrative Court granted his request, ordering the prefect to rehouse
the applicant and his family. It was not until 26 January 2017 that the social housing company EFIDIS
found him a place to live, under a lease taking effect on 31 January 2017.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court observed that on 26 January 2017, after the application had been lodged, the social
housing company EFIDIS had begun to rent new accommodation to the applicant and his wife, under
a lease running from 31 January 2017. In those circumstances it considered that the judgment of
3 March 2015 had been enforced on 31 January 2017. It thus found that the period of nonenforcement had lasted from 3 March 2015 to 31 January 2017, one year and 11 months.
As regards the domestic remedies, the Court noted firstly that the Conseil d’État had, since 2 July
2010, accepted the possibility, for individuals recognised as priority cases and having to be rehoused
urgently by a decision of the board, to bring an ordinary action for damages in respect of the loss
caused by the State’s inaction.
Secondly, the Court took the view, having regard to the domestic case-law produced, that this action
for damages enabled claimants who had ultimately been rehoused to obtain a finding that the
judgment ordering the prefect to rehouse them had remained unenforced, together with an award
The Court accordingly concluded that a compensatory remedy was available with reasonable
prospects of success. The application thus had to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic