CASE OF TCHOKONTIO HAPPI v. FRANCE

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF TCHOKONTIO HAPPI v. FRANCE

(Application no. 65829/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 April 2015

FINAL

09/07/2015

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of Tchokontio Happi v. France,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mark Villiger, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
André Potocki,
Helena Jäderblom,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 65829/12) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Cameroonian national, Ms Elisabeth Tchokontio Happi (“the applicant”), on 8 October 2012.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr F. Ormillien, a lawyer practising in Paris. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs E. Belliard, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. The applicant complained of the failure to enforce a final judgment in her favour.

4. On 12 September 2013 the Government were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris.

6. She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the Paris area since 2003. By a decision of 12 February 2010, served on 12 March 2010, the Paris mediation commission, finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions, earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing.

7. As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities six months after the date of that decision, the applicant lodged an application with the Paris Administrative Court seeking an order for the State to provide her with housing, on pain of a fine.

8. On 28 December 2010 the Administrative Court upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the Île-de-France region to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of 700 euros (EUR), payable to the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region, for each month’s delay from 1 February 2011 onwards. The Administrative Court found as follows:

“It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the Paris Police Commissioner’s Office noted on 9 July 2009 that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [the applicant], her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak. Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency.”

9. On 31 January 2012, as the applicant had still not been rehoused, the Administrative Court assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012 and ordered the State to pay EUR 8,400 into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region.

10. As matters stand, the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. Domestic law

1. The law on the enforceable right to housing

11. Law no. 2007-290 of 5 March 2007 (hereafter “the DALO Act”) was enacted against the background of a housing crisis following the substantial backlog that had built up during the 1980s and 1990s (resulting from a housing supply that was insufficient or unsuited to meet the needs of low‑income households, a continuing increase in the percentage of household income spent on housing, and a rise in the number of persons without housing or inadequately housed). The Act recognises the right to decent and independent housing for all individuals residing in France lawfully and on a long-term basis as defined by a decree of the Conseil d’État and who are unable to obtain housing by their own means or to keep their existing housing. The right is guaranteed by the State and is exercised by means of an application to resolve the matter on an amicable basis followed, if necessary, by proceedings before the administrative courts (Article L. 300-1 of the Building and Housing Code – hereafter “the Code”).

12. The amicable resolution option allows several categories of disadvantaged persons (the list of which is laid down by law) to apply to a département-level mediation commission responsible for identifying persons to be given priority as being in urgent need of housing (Article L. 441-2-3 of the Code). The commission forwards the list to the prefect, who is then required to find housing for the persons concerned (ibid.).

13. Individuals whose request for housing has been given priority and recognised as urgent under the amicable resolution procedure before the mediation commission, but who have not received an offer of housing taking account of their needs and capacities within the time-limit laid down by decree, may apply to the administrative courts seeking an order for the State to house or rehouse them, possibly on pain of a fine (Article L. 441‑2‑3-1 of the Code). The Law of 25 March 2009 on the mobilisation of resources for housing laid down rules governing the rate of the fine, specifying that this was to be determined on the basis of the average rent for the type of housing which the mediation commission considered suited to the needs of the persons concerned.

14. The fines were initially paid into the urban development funds set up in each region in order to allow the municipalities or public inter-municipal cooperation agencies to fund their land and property-related activities in the sphere of rented social housing (Article L. 441-2-3-1 of the Code). Following a recent change, they are now paid into the national housing support fund (FNAVDL) created by the 2011 Budget Amendment Act (Law no. 2011-900 of 29 July 2011). The aim of this fund is to finance, firstly, social support measures for households identified as a priority for urgent housing on the basis of the enforceable right to housing, and, secondly, appropriate rental management measures in respect of the properties allocated to those persons.

15. Assessing the amount of the fine to be paid entails a further intervention by the judge. The amount due may be final if the State has already honoured its obligations, or it may be partial, with a further amount being assessed at a later date.

16. Following this specific procedure, applicants who have been given priority and who have not obtained satisfaction may bring an action for damages against the State seeking compensation.

2. Characteristics of social housing tenancies

17. In the case of social housing a written lease is required, to be signed by the tenant and the landlord.

18. Tenants in social housing are entitled to remain in the property for an indefinite period. Landlords may terminate a lease only in exhaustively defined circumstances (including non-payment of rent or service charges, neighbourhood disturbances, income level above the threshold, accommodation insufficiently occupied over the year, or where the property has become too large).

19. If a tenant dies or abandons the property, and subject to certain conditions, the lease continues for the spouse, registered partner, live-in partner, ascendants, descendants or dependants who had been living with the tenant for at least a year on the date on which he or she died or abandoned the property.

20. Tenants in social housing may, in certain circumstances, purchase the property. This option may be exercised only once. It concerns dwellings built or acquired at least ten years previously by a social housing agency, or new housing built under the “Duflot scheme” and which complies with the minimum habitability standards laid down by decree. There are no conditions as regards the period of occupation by the tenant or his or her income. The tenant must simply submit an application to purchase the dwelling to the landlord, who forwards it to the prefect. The latter then consults the municipality in question and all the local public stakeholders involved in funding social housing (Article L. 443-7 of the Code). The sale may take place only if none of the administrative authorities object.

B. Conseil d’État opinion of 2 July 2010

21. In an opinion of 2 July 2010 regarding the compatibility of proceedings concerning the enforceable right to housing with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by the Convention, the Conseil d’État found as follows:

“...The mechanism introduced by the aforementioned provisions of the Building and Housing Code provides applicants who satisfy the criteria laid down by that Code with the possibility of bringing an action as a result of which the court may order that they be housed, rehoused or provided with accommodation and may impose a coercive fine. Furthermore, the decision of the département mediation commission is open to an ordinary appeal before the administrative courts. Lastly, the courts may impose a penalty on the State following an action for damages for failure to act.

Without prejudice to these remedies, the specific remedy available to applicants, under Article L. 441-2-3-1 of the Building and Housing Code, before a judge with powers to make orders and impose fines in order to overcome possible obstacles to enforcement, is effective with regard to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This is so even where a fine imposed on the basis of the provision in question, in view of the criteria laid down therein, is paid by the State not to the applicant but into a regional State-controlled urban development fund that is not dedicated solely to the construction of social housing.

As the provisions in question afford the persons concerned the right of access to a court with effective powers, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is unnecessary to determine whether the right to decent and independent housing is among those covered by Article 13 of the Convention.”

C. Information report on behalf of the Monitoring Committee on the Implementation of Legislation

22. A report written by Mr Dilain and Mr Roche on behalf of the Monitoring Committee on the Implementation of Legislation, entitled “The enforceable right to housing put to the test” (Information Report no. 621 (2011/12) of 27 June 2012), found as follows:

“Five years after the enactment of the DALO Act, the situation regarding the enforceable right to housing is, to say the least, disappointing.

It is true that all the regulatory instruments required for its implementation have been published, with the result that the Law of 5 March 2007 is now applicable on paper. However, the conditions needed in order for the DALO Act to succeed have not all been satisfied.

Although the number of applications to the mediation commissions has been lower than expected, 6,000 applications on average are lodged each month. The geographical concentration is particularly striking, with Île-de-France alone accounting for 60% of cases.

As reflected in the significant disparities in the proportion of favourable decisions in the different regions, there are still wide divergences in the activities of the mediation commissions. It appears that some base their decisions on contextual elements, contrary to the spirit and the letter of the law.

While the law is being complied with throughout most of the country, the départements where implementation is causing the most difficulty are those where the housing situation is at its most critical, namely Île-de-France, Rhône-Alpes, Provence‑Alpes-Côte d’Azur and Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

In view of the surprisingly high number of refusals of offers of housing or rehousing by persons granted priority owing to the urgency of their situation, the authors would recommend putting in place increased social support.

The number of court cases engendered by the DALO Act is on the increase but their usefulness is open to doubt. In about eight out of ten cases the proceedings brought under the Act result in a decision in the applicant’s favour. In almost all cases the judge’s order is accompanied by a financial penalty which the State pays to itself.

Given the small number of fines that are finally assessed, the effectiveness of these penalties in terms of rehousing applicants seems very limited. As a result the judges, who have a very heavy caseload, struggle to see any real added value in them and face incomprehension on the part of applicants who are disappointed at not being housed or rehoused as a direct outcome of their application. Confidence in the authorities’ actions suffers as a result.”

D. Monitoring Committee on Implementation of the Enforceable Right to Housing

23. In its sixth report, published on 28 November 2012, the Monitoring Committee on Implementation of the Enforceable Right to Housing, noting that implementation of the Act in question was very uneven, began by calling on the President of the Republic to issue a reminder concerning the legislation. The Committee stressed that proper implementation of the legislation required various measures to which it referred in its report, but “implie[d] first and foremost that the obligation as to results be taken into account: implementation of the right to housing must mobilise society as a whole and the State, which is its guarantor, must make use of all its prerogatives in order to ensure that it is respected.”

24. The Committee first set out the main figures for 2011 concerning the enforceable right to housing:

“7,000 applications are made per month over the whole country.

Île-de-France accounts for 59 % of applications.

Outside the capital, seven départements have more than 100 applications per month; fourteen have between 30 and 100 applications; twenty-one départements have between 10 and 29; and fifty-one have fewer than 10 applications per month.

- 88 % of applications are for housing and 12% are for short-term accommodation. The share of applications concerning the latter is falling (15% in 2010).

- 32 % of applications are from people living alone, 34% from single-parent families, 6% from childless couples and 27% from couples with children. The refusal rate is rising (55%).

- The number of households rehoused fell in the first half of 2012. Nationwide, 50% of favourable decisions resulted in rehousing; in Île-de-France, the figure was just 33.6%.

- There is a major problem as regards the implementation of decisions granting short-term accommodation, with only 29% of favourable decisions by the mediation commissions being implemented.”

25. In its report the Monitoring Committee emphasised the fact that failure to respect the right to accommodation was a “serious and manifestly unlawful infringement of a fundamental freedom”.

26. The Committee noted that since the entry into force of the DALO Act, most of the problems had been concentrated in Paris and the Île‑de‑France region. In Paris, the volume of favourable decisions given in scarcely six months was equivalent to over 100% of the allocation under all the different quotas put together, three times the prefecture’s quota, and more than six times the quota under the collective agreements in each département. Furthermore, some mayors in the suburbs of Paris were concerned about possible perverse effects of the DALO Act on the social mix in their municipalities. Municipalities which did not comply with the Solidarity and Urban Renewal Act did not come under pressure from the prefecture to accommodate persons qualifying under the DALO Act, whereas other municipalities like Argenteuil, Drancy and Sarcelles were obliged by the State to accommodate some of the poorest families. The Monitoring Committee recognised that some prefects were encountering difficulties in ensuring a social mix. However, in the Committee’s view, the fault lay not with the DALO Act but with the unequal distribution of social housing in the Île-de-France region.

27. Lastly, the committee set out four prerequisites for ensuring implementation of the enforceable right to housing: incorporating social‑policy priorities in the allocation of rented social housing; identifying and quantifying the private dwellings that could be used; clarifying the rules and responsibilities regarding unfit housing; and placing the enforceable right to housing at the heart of State action in the Île-de-France region.

28. The Committee concluded its report by highlighting best practices demonstrating that it was possible to comply with the legislation.

29. The seventh report of the Monitoring Committee on the Implementation of the DALO Act, which was sent to the Prime Minister on 20 January 2015, confirms the trends pinpointed in the previous report.

E. Figures for 2013 from the Directorate for Housing, Urban Development and Landscapes

30. According to the figures provided by the Directorate for Housing, Urban Development and Landscapes, the number of applications lodged since 1 January 2008 was 463,091 (at 13 February 2014). The number of applications to the mediation commissions was rising each year and had reached an average of 7,591 per month in 2013. 88% of applications concerned housing and 12% concerned stays in hostels or temporary accommodation. 7% of applicants had been rehoused prior to the mediation commission’s decision and 37% had received a favourable decision. However, the proportion of refusals had risen (55%).

31. In 2013 the five départements with the largest number of applications per 100,000 inhabitants were all in the Île-de-France region. They were Seine-Saint-Denis (709 applications per 100,000 inhabitants), Paris (527), Val de Marne (473), Val d’Oise (458) and Hauts-de-Seine (383).

32. There was a sharp drop in 2013 in the number of households rehoused following a favourable decision (26.8%, compared with 55.7% in 2012). However, there were substantial variations between regions: the figure was 71.4% in the Pays de la Loire, as against 17.3% in Île-de-France.

33. In total, between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2013 the number of households granted priority and still in urgent need of rehousing was 54,394.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

34. The applicant complained that she had still not been rehoused in spite of the final judgment of 28 December 2010 instructing the prefect of the Île-de-France region to find new housing for her.

35. As master of the legal characterisation of the facts the Court considers, in the circumstances of the present case, that the complaint raises issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

A. Admissibility

36. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

37. The applicant complained that the State had not complied with the judgment of 28 December 2010.

38. The Government conceded at the outset that the enforceable right to housing, as defined by the Act of 5 March 2007, came within the scope of Article 6 § 1 because it concerned civil rights.

39. The Government went on to observe that, while the Court focused on verifying that judicial decisions were properly executed, it was for States alone to determine the means of enforcement that should exist in the context of domestic proceedings. The Court’s sole task was to consider whether in the instant case the measures taken by the authorities had been adequate and sufficient (the Government cited Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003).

40. In the present case the Administrative Court, in the operative part of its judgment, had instructed the prefect of the Île-de-France region to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of EUR 700 for each month’s delay. In the Government’s submission, the measures adopted by the domestic authorities had been adequate and sufficient to ensure that the judgment was enforced.

41. The Government submitted that their obligation to rehouse the persons concerned could not be fulfilled because of the particularly difficult housing situation in the Paris area. The number of homes available to the prefecture under its right of reservation was around 1,300 per year, whereas the number of households in Paris recognised as priority cases for rehousing under the Act of 5 March 2007, and still to be rehoused, was 18,000.

42. In the face of this shortage, characterised by a flagrant mismatch between the number of homes available and the number of households recognised as priority cases, the legislature had provided for a specific judicial mechanism aimed at overcoming obstacles to the enforcement of judicial decisions recognising the right of the persons concerned to be rehoused, and thus at making enforcement of those decisions effective. This mechanism enabled the courts, as a first step, to accompany the order with a coercive fine and, as a second step, to assess the amount due, as the Administrative Court had done in the present case. Following an application for enforcement of the judgment of 28 December 2010 the Administrative Court, noting on 31 January 2012 that the applicant had still not been rehoused, had assessed the interim amount of the fine to be paid for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012 and had accordingly ordered the State to pay the sum of EUR 8,400 into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region.

43. The Government maintained that the imposition and subsequent assessment of a fine of EUR 700 per month, to be paid into the urban development fund, was wholly consistent with the aim of ensuring enforcement of the judicial decision instructing the prefect to rehouse the applicant. They pointed to the coercive nature of the fine and the fact that the fine imposed on the prefect of Île-de-France had continued to apply even after the judgment of 31 January 2012 assessing the interim amount due for a one-year period. Furthermore, under Article R. 778-8 of the Administrative Courts Code as it resulted from Article 31 of Decree No. 2010-164 of 22 February 2010, the judge who had imposed the fine could, at any time and on his own initiative, request the administrative authorities to demonstrate that the judgment of 28 December 2010 had actually been enforced, and could assess a further interim amount to be paid. The Government also argued that the amount of the fine imposed, which had been calculated by the judge on the basis of the average rent for the type of property deemed by the mediation commission to be suited to the applicant’s needs, had been wholly proportionate and consistent with the aim of enforcing the judgment ordering the applicant, her daughter and brother to be rehoused in the Paris area. Lastly, the Government submitted that the fact that the judgment required the fine to be paid into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region did not mean that the measure in question was not adequate and sufficient. The urban development fund, governed by Articles R. 302-20 to R. 302-24 of the Code, was designed to assist those municipalities that were eligible, and their public inter-municipal cooperation agencies, in funding their land and property-related activities in the sphere of social housing. Since the entry into force of the new legislation on 29 July 2011, the funding of the appropriate social support and rental management measures in respect of households that had been recognised as priority cases had been taken over by the national housing support fund (FNAVDL), which was financed from the fines paid by the State under the DALO Act. In 2012 the Île-de-France region had accounted for over half of applications to the administrative courts under the DALO Act, and payment of EUR 26.9 million had been ordered in respect of the fines imposed that year throughout the country. Using the revenue from payment of those fines, the FNAVDL allocated funds to the regions each year in order to manage rentals in an appropriate manner for households recognised as priority cases, and thus house those families more effectively. Hence, the aim of the mechanism put in place was to overcome the shortage of social housing and ensure full and effective enforcement of the decisions instructing the prefect to house or rehouse households identified by the mediation commission for the département as priority cases. Accordingly, it made no difference to whom the fine was payable: the fact that it was not paid to the individual concerned was irrelevant, provided that the cost to the State meant that the latter had an interest in seeing the judicial decision enforced rather than the opposite. The Government referred in that regard to the Conseil d’État’s opinion of 2 July 2010 (see paragraph 21 above).

2. The Court’s assessment

44. The Court reiterates that the right to execution of a judicial decision is one of the aspects of the right to a court (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II, and Simaldone v. Italy, no. 22644/03, § 42, 31 March 2009). Otherwise, the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be deprived of all useful effect. The effective protection of litigants presupposes an obligation on the part of the State or one of its agencies to comply with a judgment. Where the State refuses or fails to comply, or even delays doing so, the guarantees enjoyed under Article 6 by a litigant during the judicial phase of the proceedings are rendered devoid of purpose (see Hornsby, cited above). Execution must also be full and exhaustive and not just partial (see Matheus v. France, no. 62740/00, § 58, 31 March 2005, and Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, §§ 68-76, 2 March 2004).

45. In the instant case the decision in question was a final judgment requiring the prefect of the Île-de-France region, on pain of a fine, to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother.

46. In reply to the applicant’s complaint that she had still not been rehoused in spite of that judgment, the Government argued that, in view of the shortage of housing in the Île-de-France region, the imposition by the domestic courts of a fine of EUR 700 per month, to be paid into the urban development fund, followed by the assessment of the amount due, constituted adequate and sufficient measures to ensure enforcement of the Administrative Court’s judgment.

47. The Court observes that, although the applicant has still not been offered housing suited to her needs and capacities as expressly required by the operative provisions of the judgment of 28 December 2010, the fine imposed by that judgment was actually assessed by the court and paid by the State. However, it notes that the fine in question, the sole purpose of which was to prompt the State to enforce the order for the persons concerned to be rehoused, had no compensatory function and was not paid to the applicant but into an urban development fund, that is to say, into a State-run fund. Accordingly, since no new housing has been forthcoming, the Court cannot but observe that the judgment of 28 December 2010 has not been enforced in full, over three and a half years after its delivery and even though the domestic courts indicated that the applicant’s request should be granted as a matter of particular urgency.

48. The Court accepts that the right to immediate implementation of a final, enforceable judicial decision is not absolute. By its very nature it calls for regulation by the State, and the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in this regard. However, the final decision as to the observance of the Convention’s requirements rests with the Court; it must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. A limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. If the limitation is compatible with these principles, there is no violation of Article 6 (see Sabin Popescu, cited above, § 66).

49. The Court adds that the responsibility of the State cannot be engaged on account of non-payment of an enforceable debt as a result of the insolvency of a “private” debtor (see, for example, Sanglier v. France, no. 50342/99, § 39, 27 May 2003). In such cases, which differ from the case brought by the applicant before the Court, the State can be held responsible only if it is established that the measures taken by the national authorities were not adequate and sufficient (see, on this issue, Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002; Ruianu, cited above, § 66; Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006; and Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007). The positive obligation on the State as regards execution consists solely in making available to individuals a system by which they can obtain payment from recalcitrant debtors of the sums awarded by the courts (see Dachar v. France (dec.), no. 42338/98, 6 June 2000).

50. In the present case the Court notes that the authorities’ failure to act, which, in the Government’s submission, was due to the shortage of available housing, is not based on any valid justification within the meaning of the case-law. The Court reiterates that, according to its settled case-law, it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources as an excuse for not honouring, for instance, a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 70, ECHR 2009, and Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and Société fermière de Campoloro v. France, no. 57516/00, § 62, 26 September 2006).

51. Moreover, as noted above (see paragraph 50), the present case does not concern non-payment of an enforceable debt as a result of the insolvency of a “private” debtor.

52. These considerations suffice for the Court to conclude that in failing for several years to take the necessary measures to comply with a final and enforceable judicial decision, the national authorities deprived Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect. Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

53. The applicant complained that she had still not been rehoused in spite of the final judgment of 28 December 2010 instructing the prefect of the Île-de-France region to find new housing for her.

54. As master of the legal characterisation of the facts the Court considers, in the circumstances of the present case, that the complaint also raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A. The parties’ submissions

55. The Government observed at the outset that the judgment of 28 December 2010 had determined two issues. Firstly, after noting that the mediation commission had recognised that the applicant should have priority for urgent rehousing, it had instructed the prefect of Paris to take action accordingly, and secondly, it had accompanied that order with a fine. Following the imposition of the fine the judgment had been enforced. In any event, a fine of this nature could not constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as it was simply an option available to the judge and could not therefore give rise to any legitimate expectation. Such fines, when imposed, were coercive rather than compensatory in nature and the person concerned could not claim to be the recipient and hence the beneficiary. With regard to the second aspect of the judgment, the Government acknowledged that in establishing an enforceable right to housing, the legislature had put in place a sufficient basis in domestic law giving rise, on the part of the persons who were eligible, to a legitimate expectation of obtaining housing. Nevertheless, while persons who had secured a positive decision from the mediation commission could be considered to have a legal basis giving rise to a legitimate expectation, they could not be considered to have a claim against the State and thus a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The enforceable right to housing was not a property right in so far as it was not an asset that could be recovered by the person concerned. The right to be offered housing did not equate to a right to have rent or accommodation costs met by the State. As the applicant’s right did not constitute an asset, she could not claim the benefit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

56. The applicant complained that the State had not complied with the judgment of 28 December 2010.

B. The Court’s assessment

57. The Court reiterates at the outset that the concept of “possessions” in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I, and Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II).

58. It is true that the right to any social benefit is not included as such among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001), and that a right to live in a particular property of which one is not the owner does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see H.F. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 54797/00, 9 December 2003; Kovalenok v. Latvia (dec.), no. 54264/00, 15 February 2001; and J.L.S. v. Spain (dec.), no. 41917/98, ECHR 1999-V). However, assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right, may also fall within the notion of “possessions” contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III). In particular, the Court has consistently held that a “claim” – even one concerning the receipt of a specific welfare benefit – can constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002‑III, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301‑B). Hence, the Court has found that, where, under the terms of a final and enforceable judgment, a person has been allocated housing which he or she has the right to possess and make use of and, subject to certain conditions, to purchase, he or she can be said to have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, 30 June 2005; Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07 and 3 others, 28 July 2009; and Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia, nos. 5734/08 and 28 others, 17 April 2012).

59. The Court observes that in the present case, under the terms of the judgment of 28 December 2010, the prefect of the Île-de-France region was required to rehouse the applicant. The judgment did not require the authorities to grant the applicant ownership of a flat but to make one available to her. Under the resulting social housing tenancy, the applicant would have had the right to make use of a flat. She could also, subject to certain conditions, have purchased it. However, this was an option rather than a right, as any sale would have been subject to the authorisation of the competent administrative authorities. Hence, the applicant did not have any “legitimate expectation” of acquiring a property.

60. Accordingly, the Court cannot find that the nature of the applicant’s claim – namely, her right to a social housing tenancy – was such as to amount to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

61. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

62. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

63. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Done in French, and notified in writing on 9 April 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

              Claudia WesterdiekMark Villiger
RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy