El juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo ha autorizado al Ayuntamiento de Barakaldo a que desahucie, a partir del 1 de enero, a una familia con cuatro hijos menores a su cargo —de 5, 8, 11 y 13 años— que entró a finales de septiembre en un piso municipal que llevaba casi un año y medio deshabitado. La resolución judicial, que se puede recurrir y que también afecta a otros dos adultos que residen en el mismo inmueble, "no hace ni una sola mención al hecho de que hay cuatro niños viviendo en el piso y que las familias no tienen una vivienda alternativa", según denuncia el abogado a los afectados en un escrito que ha remitido al Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. En la comunicación a la corte de Estrasburgo, el letrado solicita amparo para los perjudicados y que se paralice de manera cautelar el desahucio municipal. La plataforma contra la exclusión Berri-Otxoak, que apoya a las familias amenazadas de desalojo, recuerda que el tribunal de derechos humanos ha intervenido repetidamente en casos anteriores suspendiendo las órdenes de desalojo.
Archivo |
> 26/11/2015. Barakaldo se declara municipio libre de desahucios y censará los pisos vacíos
> 11/11/2015. Las familias con orden municipal de desahucio piden el amparo del Tribunal de Estrasburgo
> 09/11/2015. El Ayuntamiento pide al juez que autorice el desahucio policial de una familia con cinco hijos
> 31/10/2015. La familia con cinco hijos sin vivienda espera sin ayudas el desalojo ordenado por el Ayuntamiento
> 26/10/2015. Anuncian resistencia civil ante la orden municipal de desalojo de un familia con cinco hijos
> 20/10/2015. La alcaldesa critica a la familia okupa con hijos y dice que otras 40 también esperan vivienda social
> 19/10/2015. Barakaldo niega el empadronamiento a la familia con cinco hijos que ocupa un piso municipal vacío
> 09/10/2015. "Todo lo que pedimos es una vivienda digna para que nuestros hijos no se queden en la calle"
> 08/10/2015. Decretado el desalojo de 3 familias okupas con cinco menores de un piso municipal vacío 2 años
Nota de prensa de Berri-Otxoak
“Las tres familias de Murrieta solicitan el amparo al Tribunal de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo”
==> Las tres familias afectadas por la orden de desalojo de las viviendas municipales, vacías desde hacía casi dos años y dictada por el Área de Alcaldía del Ayuntamiento de Barakaldo, presentan recurso de paralización del desahucio ante el Tribunal de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo hasta disponer de una alternativa habitacional. El Tribunal de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo ha paralizado diferentes desahucios “hasta procurar desde las diferentes administraciones una alternativa habitacional a los afectados. Más si cabe sí hay menores afectados por la actuación institucional de desalojo”.
==> El desalojo que quiere ejecutar el equipo de Gobierno municipal dejaría en la calle a tres familias con cuatro menores a su cargo que en la actualidad no han recibido el certificado de empadronamiento, lo que les imposibilita el acceso a ningún tipo de ayuda económica.
==> El Tribunal de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo ha sentenciado que “se ha de dar un alojamiento alternativo adecuado y servicios sociales a la familia afectada por un desalojo ante la evidente constatación de una situación de exclusión y precariedad económica.”
La petición de auxilio al Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo se basa en su propia jurisprudencia; la cual ha paralizado diferentes desahucios “hasta procurar desde las diferentes administraciones una alternativa habitacional a los afectados. Más si cabe sí hay menores afectados por la actuación institucional de desalojo”.
Remarcando lo afirmado en una reciente sentencia: “se ha de dar un alojamiento alternativo adecuado y servicios sociales a la familia afectada por un desalojo ante la evidente constatación de una situación de exclusión y precariedad económica. No se debe desahuciar de la vivienda habitual a las personas que residen en ella para evitar un procedimiento lesivo para las personas que se encuentran en situación de necesidad”.
Otro de los argumentos que se ha utilizado es la prevalencia jurídica del interés superior del menor. Las diferentes administraciones públicas han suscrito –y asumido- el contenido del “Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH)”, la “Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño” y las recomendaciones de la Unión Europea en el sentido de poner todos los medios para evitar “la pobreza infantil y las consecuencias que implica en su formación y desarrollo”.
Solicitud de amparo
Ante esta evidente vulneración de derechos se requerirá como medida cautelar la PARALIZACIÓN del decreto de Alcaldía de desalojo con fecha 6 de noviembre 2015 pues “su ejecución produciría una quiebra del derecho a la integridad física y moral de imposible o difícil reparación”. La súplica de una aplicación escrupulosa de la protección jurídica ha de tener en cuenta la evidente situación de pobreza económica y riesgo de exclusión social que padecen estas 3 familias barakaldesas. Ante un posible proceso de inclusión podría éste verse fatalmente truncado en caso de ejecutarse el Decreto de Alcaldía de desahucio cuya suspensión se solicita.
Debemos insistir en que el derecho a la vivienda, como derecho fundamental que es, debe prevalecer en caso de conflicto con otro tipo de derechos no esenciales, tal y como reiteradamente ha venido a recordar al Reino de España -y consiguientemente a todas sus administraciones públicas- el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Magistratura que ha insistido a través de sus sentencias en el aplazamiento de las decisiones administrativas y judiciales que puedan suponer un riesgo de dejar a ciudadanos y ciudadanas en la calle; obligando, mediante sus pronunciamientos, a la paralización de las órdenes de desahucio.
Todo lo citado anteriormente exige a las instituciones a buscar el modo de ofrecer una alternativa habitacional a las familias con menores a cargo; y afectadas por los decretos de desalojo. Así ha ocurrido en bastantes casos: dos en la provincia de Madrid, uno en Sabadell y otro en el municipio de Salt en Barcelona.
Denuncia entregada al tribunal
1.- In September 2015, three families including four adults and four children 5, 8, 11 and 13 years old, started to use and live in a small part of a public building in the township of Barakaldo, province of Bizkaia in Spain, with the support of some local associations and NGOs spesialised in the struggle against povertry and social exclusion. One fact that these three families have in common, and that becomes one of the main points to be taken into account by the Court in this case, is that all of them suffered some sort of loss or problems with their registration of residency, so NOWADAYS, BY THE MID OF DECEMBER, THEY ARE REGISTERED EITHER NOWHERE OR IN SOME PLACE THEY LEFT LONG AGO. Which, in the end, means that THEY HAVEN'T THE PROTECTION THAT THE "BASQUE SYSTEM FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION" PROVIDES TO ANY CITIZEN REGISTERED IN THE BASQUE AUTONOMY: they can't ask for any of the different economic or social services this Sistem offers to its citizens, such as public lodging, the RGI (Assets Guarantee Income), the PCV (House Supplementary Benefit), the AES (Social Emergency Assistance), etc. Or, from another point of view, if the local goverment should try to provide them with any of those aids, surely it would be itself commiting a crime of legal corruption.
So, as soon as these three families came to the building they are now living in, and again with the help of social workers and associations, and even with the support of part of the representatives in the town council of Barakaldo, they asked for the registration in the premises of the Local Social Services, so they could be under the protection of the "Basque System for Social Protection" including the opportunity to get access to another flat or room to share and to live in. THIS PROCESS IS STILL ONGOING; IS UTTERLY UPON THE LOCAL GOVERMENT TO ACCELERATE OR CARRY OUT WITH IT; AND IT'S ONLY WHEN THIS PROCESS IS FULLY CONCLUDED THAT THE FOUR ADULTS AND FOUR CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WILL HAVE ACCESS TO AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC HOUSING ASSISTENCE which allow them to leave their actual dwelling. In fact, both them and myself as their lawyer have repeatedly stated that they will leave peacefully and voluntarily the building as soon as they get the legal registration in the city of Barakaldo, from which all the four adults are native. It is important to take this into account, in order to understand which is the human right at stake in this case.
2.- Notwithstanding the foregoing, the local goverment of Barakaldo council town decided not to wait until the registration process was fulfilled, and began the process to force the eviction of the three families. Opened the term to submit the defence plea, these families stated in october the 19th [see DOC. #1], that the they went to that building out of necessity, because they hadn't any other place to go; that they would leave the place as soon as they had the chance to rent a flat or even a single room to protect themselves from the cold; and, meanwhile, that they didn't agree with the way the local goverment pretended to follow to come to a decision, as it should be the whole council town govermente and not only the Mayor which should make that decision.
3.- The answer was the "Mayoral's Decree" of November the 6th [DOC. #2], which is the administrative act that set in motion all this lawsuit, in which the local govermente states or decides 1) that the occupation of the public building is illegal (which is true and nobody discusses it) but at the same time, and NOTWITHSTANDING the extreme vulnerability condition of these families and THE FACT THAT THERE ARE FOUR CHILDREN LIVING IN IT, 2) that the council would go to the Court to ask for authorization to evict the eight people.
4.- With this administrative act on the hand, both the council town and the families' lawyers set in motion two different judicial processes which went to two different "Courts of the Contentious-Administrative" of Bilbao: 1) in the Court number 1, the request made by the Mayoral of Barakaldo or autorization fot the Local Police to evict these families; 2) in the Court number 5, the appeal of those families to stop that eviction because it would represent a violation of the human rights and specially of the rights of the children living in it.
5.- In order to accumulate both judicial processes in just one Court, this lawyer submited two different requests [DOCS. #3 and #4] that, as far as we now, have been not definitely decided yet [see DOC. #5; in it, recived today 15th of December, the Judge states that, knowing that the prosecutor and the lawyer of Barakaldo council town are against the accumulation, the matter will be "upon the table yet to be decided"].
6.- So, regarding the first of the processes, today, December the 15th, the Judge have submitted his decision [DOC. #6], AUTHORISING THE LOCAL POLICE TO ENTER THE BUILDING AND TO EVICT THE FAMILIES IN 15 DAYS TERM (that is, the 1st of January). NOT A SINGLE MENTION IN THE RESOLUTION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE FOUR CHILDREN LIVING IN THE BUILDING, AND THAT THOSE FAMILIES HAVE NOT ANY HOUSING ALTERNATIVE.
7.- On the other hand, the appeal made by this lawyer in the Court number 5 to reject the "Mayoral Decree" of November the 6th as its fulfillment IN THIS PRECISE MOMENT would represent a violation of the basic rights of both the adults and specially the children living in the building, gave room to a "fast hearing" about the interim measure included in the appeal. In that hearing, that was celebrated in the 2nd of December, myself as the building's inhabitants lawyer stated 1) that the main point in this issue is not if the presence of these eight people in the building is legal or not, as they have the support of an important part in the local society and even the local representatives, but indeed they haven't any contract or authorization to enter the building; 2) the main point is that, not being registered in the town of Barakaldo and in some cases even nowhere, AT THIS MOMENT THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO ASK FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION OR SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, WHICH MEANS THAT A EVICTION WOULD DERIVE IN LEAVING THEM ON THE STREET IN THE HEART OF THE WINTER (it must be remembered here that, unlike other countries in Europe, Spain doen't have such a thing as a "winter truce" or a certain period of time of the year in which it is banned to evict people from a house); 3) the building this families are occuping have been empty for years, with no definite or particular plans or proyects to use it in the short/medium term; and 4) that they positively and repeatedly have stated that will leave the building as soon as they have any other place to go.
8.- The only answer from both the prosecutor and the lawyer of Barakaldo's local goverment in that hearing was that we didn't prove any direct nexus or relation between the fulfillment of the "Mayoral Decree" of November the 6th (that is, the eviction from the building) and the violation of the basic rights of its inhabitants. We thought and still think not necessary to explain that leaving in the street, in full winter, four adults and four children that due to their special administrative situation (being not properly registered) can not appeal to the "Basque System for Social Protection", is a clear example of the violation of the right to not being subjected to any fisical or moral damage. Specially in the case of the children, and having into account the prohibition to inflict any punishment or cause a risk of "children povertry" to a kid just because of the negligence of their parents.
9.- The outcome of this fast hearing were to consecutive resolutions by the Court number 5: 1) one dated the very 2nd of December [DOC. #7], in which the judge rejects the appeal to adopt the interim measure of cancelling the executority of the administrative act while discussing about the eventuality of a violation of my defendants' basic rights; 2) and the other, dated the next day, 3th of December [DOC. #8], in which the judge rejects the main appeal, as in his opinion there is not violation of basic rights in this case. NO MENTION TO THE PRESENCE OF 5, 8, 11 AND 13 YEARS OLD CHILDREN IN THESE DECREES, EITHER.
We believe necessary to fully and literally quote the argument employed by the judge to reject the interim measure, as in our opinion reveal a failure in the special and essential role this kind of judicial procedures should have in the defense of the citizen's rights against the arbitrariness of the Administration: the judge says, literally [pags. 4-5 of the DOC. #7]: "so that (…) the situation shouldn't be necessarily irreversible in the event that the eviction would take place before the occupants could be granted dweling and economic aids, purpose to which the council town intention aims. (…), having the Council of Barakaldo freedom to fulfill the eviction —supposing that it gets the judicial authorization to enter to the residence, as requested— it rests to the prudent judgement of the Council Town —that we must presume ex art. 103.1 Spanish Constitution— to fix the exact date of the eviction taking in the account the development of the ongoing social intervention with the occupants".
That is, what the judge is doing in this Decree is, on the one hand, admiting that there is an ongoing process to guarantee the right to housing for these families; and, on the other, to state that the Council Town "probably" will act with "prudent judgemente" and will wait untill the aforesaid process have finished. But what my defendants were expecting and asked for was not an opinion, or presumption, or suspiction about how would the Council Town act in this or that case; what they urgently need —specially now that another Court has given the Council Town authorization to fulfill the eviction, and knowing that Spain have seen tenths of thousands of that kind of evictions in the past years— IS TO KNOW, WITH ALL THE LEGAL CERTAINTY, THAT THE SPANISH COURTS OF JUSTICE WILL DEFEND THEIR RIGHT AND THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER ANY DENIGRATING TREATMENT. And, in this particular case, the Court have failed to grant this right to these three families.
10.- Finally, the past 10th of December the families' lawyer submited two appeals against both the Decrees of the Court number 5 above mentioned. The text of the two appeals is exactly the same, so we only attach one copy here, numbered as DOC. #9. These two appeals, after offering a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE UP-TO-DATE ADMINISTRATIVE SITUATION OF EACH OF THE FAMILIES INVOLVED (including the progressions or the lack of them in the process to register themselves in the Local Social Service office) are based on FOUR MEANS OF REFUTATION, in short:
1) There is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of these eight people, and it occurs because they are about to be evicted from their temporary dwelling, in full winter, WITHOUT ANY OTHER HOUSING ALTERNATIVE, NEITHER PUBLIC NOR PRIVATE.
2) MOREOVER, THERE SHOULD BE FOUR CHILDREN SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS EVICTION. Even if their parents would be guilty of some kind of infraction, crime or fault (which is no the case), the children shouldn't undergo the consequences, putting them at risk of suffering from children's povertry, etc.
3) The Spanish Courts of Justice have failed in providing these families with a sound and legally safe and certain Resolution. In the same Decree, the judge says that it is not necessary to agree to any interim measure, but not because he will ban the Concil Town of Barakaldo to fulfill the eviction before the administrative process of registration is finished, but because he "doesn't think" that the local goverment will act that way, and he "hopes" that it will follow a "prudent judgement".
4) We are not asking to legalize what started as an more or less "illegal" entrance in a public building (with the support, that must be said, of a good part of the society); the Court could easily PLAY BY THE RULES AND, AT THE SAME TIME, GUARANTEE THESE FAMILIES' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BY DIFFERENT WAYS: agreeing to the interim measure they asked for, and ending it when they finally have fully access to the "Basque Social Protection System"; forbidding the fulfillment of the eviction before the process of registration and regularization of the administrative situation is totally finished; or declaring the eviction in the actual condictions is against the human rights, and asking the Council Town to wait until these condictions change to ask again (and then agreeing to) the authorization to fulfill the eviction.
However, and once the request to concede the precautionary measure has been rejected, we must say that even if these two appeals get along, as this Court knows in the Spanish administrative-judicial system the administrative acts are fully executable if they are not quickly suspended, so, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, THE DECISION OF THE "COURT NUMBER 1 OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE OF BILBAO" DATED THE LAST 10TH OF DECEMBER [DOC. #6] IS THOROUGHLY EXECUTIVE, SO THE ONLY HOPE FOR THESE FOUR ADULTS AND FOUR CHILDREN AGED 5, 8, 11 AND 13 YEARS OLD NOT TO BE EVICTED FROM THEIR DWELLING BEFORE GETTING ACCESS TO THE "BASQUE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEM" IS TO GET THE IMMEDIATE PROTECTION OF THIS COURT, VIA THE "INTERIM MEASURE" OF THE #39 OF THE RULES OF THE COURT.
Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments
Art. 3. Prohibition of torture. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. The fulfillment of the "Decree of the Mayoral of Barakaldo" of November 6th 2015 and the Decree of the Court Contentious-Administrative of Bilbao number 1 of December 10th 2015, IN THIS EXACT MOMENT, when the three families have not legal or real ways to get a HOUSING ALTERNATIVE because their processes to administrative registration is not finished yet, would mean that four adults and four children aged 5, 8, 11 and 13 years old would be left alone in the streets in full winter. This is a clear example of degrading treatment by the Spanish Public Administrations, specially if we take into account that Barakaldo Council Town has no plans to use the public building and that in on its hands to fulfill the process of administrative registration of this families, letting them access to the "Basque System to Social Protection" that includes housing and economic assistance.
Art. 8. Right to respect for private and family life. The aforesaid is equally valid to prove the existence of a violation of this Article of the Convention.
Art. 13. Right to an effective remedy. The three families went to the Spanish Courts of Justice asking for protection of their fundamental rights. However, as we have better explained along the statement of the facts, the Court of the Contentious-Administrative number 5 of Bilbao just stated that he "believes" that the Council Town "probably" will act with "prudent judgemente" and will wait untill the administrative registration process is finished and only then will fulfill the eviction from the house, giving no real or effective guarantees neither legal security that this will be the way the Public Powers will follow.
