Communicated on 13 January 2021
Published on 1 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 48512/20
Zouhair DAHMAN BENDHIMAN
against Spain
lodged on 29 October 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns eviction proceedings brough against the applicant due to his inability to satisfy the increased rent as a result of the sale of his house to a private company by the State. The applicant intended to appeal the eviction arguing, inter alia, that the sale was null and void, a fact that the first instance court had not resolved. However, the applicant was required under Spanish law to deposit the full amount owed, which made it impossible to file his appeal and thus complain of the lack of answer to his petition concerning the alleged nullity of the sale of his property. The sale was declared null and void by administrative courts after the eviction took place.
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, both individually and jointly with Article 14, due to the lack of response of the Spanish courts concerning the alleged nullity of the sale and his inability to appeal the eviction order.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Particularly,
(a) did the first instance court offer sufficient reasoning for the applicant’s eviction, particularly insofar as he complained that his property’s sale was null and void (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 30, Series A no. 303‑A; Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 28, Series A no. 303‑B)? ; did the refusal to stay the eviction proceedings until an administrative decision on the property’ sale had been reached impede the right of the applicant to have his arguments considered?
(b) did the applicant have access to an appeal to contest his eviction? In particular, has the legal aid granted to the applicant been an effective means of guaranteeing his rights under Article 6, taking into account that domestic law does not exempt the applicant to deposit the amount he had been ordered to pay in this case (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26 Series A no. 32; García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, ECHR 2000‑II)?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, insofar as he was unable to access to an appeal whilst the other party could benefit from this right? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification (see Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 132, ECHR 2006‑I (extracts))?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy