Judgment Nº E/C.12/68/3 from United Nations of Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 14-10-2020

• Judgment Date: 14 October 2020
• Subject Matter: health,health rights,pension rights,women rights
• Court: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

	United Nations	E/C.12/68/3
	Economic and Social Council	Distr.: General 3 November 2020 Original: English

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Follow-up progress report on individual communications * A.Introduction

The present report is a compilation of information received from States parties and authors on measures taken to implement the Views and recommendations on individual communications submitted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. The information has been processed in the framework of the follow-up procedure established under article 9 of the Optional Protocol and rule 18 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol.

B.Communications

I.D.G. v. Spain (E/C.12/55/D/2/2014)
Views adopted:	17 June 2015
Contents of initial communication:	The home of the author of the communication had been the subject of mortgage enforcement proceedings. However, the author had not been personally notified of the decision to admit the enforcement proceedings: notification by public posting of notice had been used instead. The author claimed that she had not been apprised of the notification and had therefore been unable to come forward in person and mount a defence against the foreclosure application. The author considered that the notification by public posting in her case had constituted a violation of her rights under article 11 of the Covenant.
Article violated:	Article 11 of the Covenant
Committee ’ s recommendations in respect of the author:	The State party has an obligation to provide the author with effective remedy, in particular: (a)Ensure that the auction of the author’s property does not proceed unless she is guaranteed due procedural protection and due process, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant and taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and general comment No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions; (b)Reimburse the author for the legal costs incurred in the processing of the communication.
Committee ’ s general recommendations:	The State party has the following obligations: (a)Ensure the accessibility of legal remedies for persons facing mortgage enforcement proceedings for failure to repay loans; (b)Adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures to ensure that notification by public posting of notice in mortgage enforcement proceedings is strictly limited to situations in which all means of serving notice in person have been exhausted, ensuring sufficient publicity and long enough notice for the affected person to have the opportunity to take full cognizance of the start of the proceedings and to be able to attend; (c)Adopt appropriate legislative measures to ensure that the mortgage enforcement procedure and the procedural rules establish appropriate requirements and procedures to be followed before going ahead with the auction of a dwelling, or with eviction, in accordance with the Covenant and taking into account the Committee’s general comment No. 7.
Previous decision:	At its sixty-sixth session, the Committee adopted a report on follow-up to communications (E/C.12/66/3), in which it considered that all the general recommendations and recommendation (a) in respect of the author had been largely implemented. The Committee decided to continue the follow-up procedure for recommendation (b) in respect of the author.
State party ’ s submission:	In a note verbale dated 6 February 2020, the State party provided information on the steps taken to implement the Committee’s recommendation (b) in respect of the author and requested that the follow-up to the Committee’s Views be closed. The State party submits that on 4 June 2018, the Madrid High Court of Justice adopted a final judgment declaring inadmissible the contentious-administrative appeal filed against the administration’s decision to deny the author’s lawyers’ request for payment of 49,600 euros for legal costs plus interest for lateness. The judgment underlines that it is the author, and not her lawyers, who is entitled to request reimbursement of expenditures. It also notes that the request for reimbursement had been submitted by the lawyers “acting on their own name and right” and that there was no evidence that the author had paid any of the lawyers’ fees.
Author ’ s comments:	On 15 April 2020, the author sent her comments on the State party’s submission. She submits that the request for reimbursement of the fees was not rejected on the merits, but was declared inadmissible for formal reasons, and that the State party is therefore not prevented from reimbursing her the legal costs. The author considers that the State party should proceed with the reimbursement ex officio and without further delay.
Committee ’ s decision:	The Committee notes that the author’s representatives claimed 49,600 euros from the State party, a claim that has been rejected because the lawyers are not entitled to claim reimbursement of those fees. The Committee notes that the author considers that the State party should reimburse her ex officio and without further delay. The Committee stresses that the parties are justified in seeking the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations, in good faith and in a reasonable manner at all times. In this respect, the Committee considers that some of its recommendations may be implemented ex officio, whereas others may require some sort of action from the interested party. In the specific circumstances of this recommendation, its implementation, according to the State party’s applicable law, required specific action from the author, taken in good faith and in a reasonable manner. In the current case, on 4 June 2018, the judicial authorities indicated to the author the channel that she would need to use to submit her claim and, according to the information before the Committee, the author has not yet submitted such a claim. The Committee therefore considers that, according to the information available, the State party has not opposed the reimbursement of the legal costs that the author could have reasonably paid in the processing of her communication to the Committee, and has made available to her a procedure to request such reimbursement. In conclusion, the Committee considers that the fact that this recommendation has not been implemented so far cannot be attributed to the State party.
	The Committee recalls that, during its sixty-sixth session, it took the view that the implementation by the State party of the rest of the recommendations had been largely satisfactory and concluded its follow-up to those recommendations. In the light of the above, the Committee decides to conclude the follow-up to these Views, considering that their implementation has been largely satisfactory.

Trujillo Calero v. Ecuador (E/C.12/63/D/10/2015)
Views adopted:	26 March 2018
Contents of initial communication:	The author had for years been a voluntary affiliate of the social security system, since she had worked as an unpaid domestic worker, and had made monthly contributions from November 1981 onward, except for a period of eight months during which she had made no contributions. The author had later paid those contributions retroactively. On the basis of information provided by the social security services, in 2001, the author had applied for early special retirement, but the request had been rejected on the grounds that the minimum number of contributions had not been made, and that all the voluntary contributions made after the eight-month period during which she had not contributed had been invalid.
Articles violated:	Article 9 and articles 2 (2) and 3, read together with article 9, of the Covenant
Committee ’ s recommendations in respect of the author:	The State party has an obligation to provide the author with effective remedy, in particular: (a)Provide the author with the benefits to which she is entitled as part of her right to a pension, taking into account the contributions that she made to the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute, or, alternatively, other equivalent social security benefits enabling her to have an adequate and dignified standard of living, bearing in mind the criteria established in the Committee’s Views; (b)Award the author adequate compensation for the violations suffered during the period in which she was denied her right to social security and for any other harm directly related to such violations; (c)Reimburse the author for the legal costs reasonably incurred in the processing of the communication.
Committee ’ s general recommendations:	The State party has the following obligations: (a)Adopt appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures to ensure the right of all affiliates to request, seek and receive information on their right to social security, including...