Says judges must ensure “vulnerable people” are protected before authorizing an eviction
MADRID, 19 Jul. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has annulled a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) that authorized the eviction of a vulnerable family with two minors, considering that the precautionary measures were not verified “priorly and reliably necessary to ensure the due protection of said minors”.
The sentence includes the case of a family, which receives the minimum insertion income and “is under the intervention of social services”, which occupied a house located in the Madrid neighborhood of San Blas owned by the Madrid Housing Institute ( Ivima).
According to the Supreme Court, in a ruling to which Europa Press has had access, the Community of Madrid (CAM) requested judicial authorization to enter and vacate the house, but the Contentious-Administrative Court Number 24 of the capital denied it to the consider that the CAM did not adopt “previous and adequate measures for the effective protection of the interests of minors”.
The regional government then appealed to the TSJ, which agreed with it, arguing that “the weighting judgment that must be made in cases of the presence of minors at home does not affect the decision to enter, but rather the manner in which that the administration must execute it”.
“In other words, we consider that the protection of minors affects not the ‘what’ of the authorization but rather the ‘how’ of it,” reasoned the Madrid Superior Court of Justice.
The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TS, in a presentation by magistrate María Isabel Perelló, annulled the decision of the TSJM and ratified that of the first court, thus aligning itself with the mother of the minors, who argued that the regional court “does not duly considered the presence at home of vulnerable people and limited itself to providing a series of insufficient precautions for their protection”.
In effect, the Supreme Court affirms that the TSJM “authorized entry into the home knowing the presence of vulnerable people, specifically two minors, but without verifying in advance and in a reliable manner the necessary precautionary measures to ensure the due protection of said minors”.
“The judicial body limited itself to informing the Commission for the Protection of Minors of the Ministry of Social Services of the autonomous community of the authorization of entry so that this body could adopt the necessary protection measures for minors,” he reproaches.
The Third Chamber explains that, “although the aforementioned Guardianship Commission of the Ministry of Social Services is ordered to communicate the measures adopted to the authorizing court, it is an ‘a posteriori’ notification, that is, once the eviction has occurred of the dwelling”.
“However, it is not possible to grant the entry authorization without the judicial body verifying ‘ex ante’ the adequacy and proportionality of the measures adopted by the administration for the protection of the interests of minors or other vulnerable persons affected by the eviction. “, emphasizes the Supreme Court.
Thus, in line with this case, the high court reiterates its criteria that “since vulnerable people are affected in an eviction from an illegally occupied house, the entry authorization must verify ‘ex ante’ the adequacy and proportionality of the measures adopted by the administration for the protection of said persons, without questioning the origin of the eviction”.
In this way, it clarifies that “the contentious-administrative judicial body is not competent to determine the specific measures to be adopted, but it must verify before authorizing entry into an illegally occupied residence, in order to proceed with its eviction, that the administration that executes it has taken into account the protection of vulnerable people and that the measures adopted are proportionate and sufficient”.
