ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/139/D/3795/2020

Communication

3795/2020

Submission: 2020.07.17

View Adopted: 2023.10.31

E.Z. et al. v. Greece

Forced and unjustified evictions in Greece of people belonging to Roma ethnicity

Substantive Issues
  • Arbitrary interference with family
  • Effective remedy
  • Honour and reputation
  • Non-discrimination
  • Right to life
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Article 17
  • Article 2
  • Article 2 - OP1
  • Article 23
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 5.2 (b) - OP1
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 9
Full Text

Facts

The authors of the communication are nationals of Greece and Albania, are of Roma ethnicity, and claim being subjected to forced and unjustified evictions. The authors live in Greece and claim to have been living in a Roma settlement for 15 years in inhuman conditions near a landfill where they sorted and collected recyclable materials to sell. They were under the belief that they had to stay in the settlement until they were relocated upon central and local policies adopted by Greece in favour of Roma, which had to be sanctioned by the EU. The authors’ dwellings were demolished by personnel of the municipality, and the authors claim that no judicial or administrative decision had authorised such demolitions. Following the demolitions, the authors claim to have been harassed by the Deputy Mayor of the municipality and that they were forced to reside in the countryside in the sunlight and unsanitary living conditions during COVID-19, which have continued till date. On not receiving any official information about the legal basis for demolitions undertaken by the municipality, a criminal lawsuit against the municipality was filed on behalf of the victims, including the authors. The authors claim that conviction of the perpetrators would not alleviate their situation and illegal occupants on private land should be sued before their expulsion or demolition, which the municipality did not follow.

The authors claim that in the absence of a judicial or administrative order for their eviction, they have no opportunity to challenge any action before domestic courts and as the dwellings were built in violation of town planning regulations, the domestic authorities were, in principle, entitled to remove them as it was an unlawful occupation. As there is no civil remedy available and other criminal proceedings would be ineffective, the authors in the communication claim unlawful interference with their homes and unlawful attack on their honour and reputation and accordingly a violation of their rights under articles 2 (3), 6 read alone and with article 2; 7 read alone and with articles 2 (1) and (3); 9; 14 (1); 16 read alone and with articles 14, 17 and 26; 17 read alone and with article 2 (3) and 14; 23 read alone and with article 2 (3); 26 read alone and with article 2 (2); and 27 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The State party argued that domestic remedies have not been exhausted by the authors and that the authors could have requested the civil courts for protection and also applied for interim measures. The Committee observed that the criminal lawsuit filed on behalf of the authors is still pending with the Public Prosecutor, and that in the absence of the authors not explaining how the pending criminal procedure was unreasonably delayed, this procedure cannot be considered as being exhausted. The Committee also recalled that authors of communications should exercise due diligence in pursuing available domestic remedies and mere doubts about their effectiveness do not absolve the authors from exhausting them. The Committee noted that in the present communication, both the parties provide a different version of the facts and that the authors have not substantiated as to why they cannot submit claims to the domestic authorities and why administrative and judicial appeals would be manifestly ineffective. The Committee decided that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their claims and hence held the communication as inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese