On 5 March 2026, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) published the Views adopted on 13 February 2026 regarding communication No. 222/2021, initially submitted on 22 July 2021. The views were adopted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR). The subject matter addressed was the forced eviction of a family by the State Party, Italy, without the provision of alternative housing. The author claimed this violated their right to adequate housing under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Articles 3.1  and 5 of the OP-ICESCR.     

The communication was submitted by E.P., an Italian national, and outlined the damage suffered by his wife, K.E., and his two minor children, L.P. and G.P. On 28 July 2021, the Committee registered the communication and required the State Party to take urgent measures to prevent irreparable harm to the author and his family through the suspension of the eviction or provision of appropriate alternative accommodation in consultation with the author. The request received no answer.

Factual Background & Initial Complaint

The author and his spouse migrated to Italy from the former Yugoslavia; they have two children who were minors before the registration of the communication, with the youngest suffering from nocturnal epilepsy. The author disclosed that at the time of submission, he was working 5 days per month, with subsidies amounting to 40% of his salary. The family’s income was EUR 10,169 per year, determined using the Equivalent Economic Situation Index (ISEE).

In 2007, the author signed an agreement to purchase a 47-square-metre apartment in a subsidised housing complex under construction and co-funded by the Fiumicino Municipality and the regional government of Lazio. The social housing plan, “Piani di Zona”, established that the properties could neither be sold or rented at market rates. The author then paid an undisclosed amount to the real estate agency during construction of the property, and EUR 40,000 to the construction company. After a significant delay, the apartment was finally handed over in 2010; however, the author and his family were not granted ownership and were required to pay rent to the construction company. The author paid an additional EUR 40,000, which would be subtracted from the property’s final price. In 2014, substantial issues with the apartment's quality were identified, and it was determined that the rent the company demanded from the author was illegal. Nonetheless, the construction company refused to compensate the difference between what the author paid and the amount they were legally entitled to request.

The construction company filed for bankruptcy in 2018, after which the Court of Rome appointed an insolvency administrator. In the first half of 2019, the author’s family, along with others under similar circumstances, made offers to the court-appointed administrator, which were rejected as the administrator sought to settle debts with the company’s creditors by selling the properties at market value. As a result, the insolvency administrator did not proceed with renewing the author’s tenancy agreement, and the author received notice of an eviction order on 1 October 2019.

The eviction order stated that occupants without legal title had to vacate the property on the grounds that a non-occupied house would fetch a better price at auction. That same month, the construction company faced aggravated fraud charges involving the author and other affected parties. The bankruptcy proceedings concluded in November 2019, after which the author filed for suspension of the eviction based on the ongoing criminal case, a request that was denied in January 2020.

In December 2019, the Lazio Regional Council, which had granted public funding for the subsidised housing project, sued the construction company. The author used this as grounds for filing another request to suspend the eviction, which went unanswered. In February 2020, a law was passed specifically allowing for eviction suspensions in cases of subsidised housing where public funding was being withdrawn or criminal proceedings were underway. Despite this, the author’s suspension request was not addressed until May 2020 and was rejected by a decision backdated to March 2020.

The Covid-19 pandemic led the State to pause all evictions through September 2020. A fifth suspension request filed in January 2021 was likewise denied, with the court stating it was not competent to handle social matters. In May 2021, the company was formally indicted for fraud, with the trial beginning in March 2022. The author and his family were ultimately evicted on 12 September 2024.

The author cited Article 11 of the Covenant to argue that public authorities failed to grant his family the economic, social, and cultural rights that the State committed to implement. The author claimed that public authorities had a duty to monitor the use of the social housing schemes they had helped establish, thus ensuring that no fraudulent activities were committed. The aim of social housing investments should be to provide proper accommodation to individuals with limited access to the private housing market, not to prioritise private profit. The author also reiterated that there was no proportionality in the enforcement of the eviction order, as he and his family faced homelessness as a consequence.

Arguments of the Parties on Admissibility and the Merits

The central dispute between the parties concerned whether the author had exhausted all available domestic remedies before submitting the communication, as required under article 3(1) of the OP-ICESCR.

In its observations of 26 November 2021, the State Party argued that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies, as the bankruptcy and criminal proceedings were still ongoing at the time of submission. The State Party further asserted that the author had not pursued all available remedies, such as filing civil actions to contest the eviction order, seeking enforcement of his purchase option before civil courts, claiming reimbursement through bankruptcy proceedings, or joining the criminal case as a civil party.

The author rebutted that the bankruptcy proceedings had already been closed in 2019 and that the criminal proceedings were neither effective nor timely, having failed to secure restitution of life savings lost to inflated rents and deposits. The author further highlighted the risk of criminal offences arising from prolonged delays and stressed that the Committee’s July 2021 request for interim measures had remained entirely unimplemented, with neither a suspension of the eviction nor the provision of alternative housing offered.

The Committee recalled that, for the purposes of article 3.1, domestic remedies are those available in direct relation to the events giving rise to the alleged violation and that may reasonably be considered effective. Noting that the author had submitted five requests for suspension of the eviction order, all of which were rejected, and in the absence of any clear indication from the State Party of which additional remedies remained available, the Committee concluded that article 3.1 of the OP-ICESCR did not constitute an obstacle to admissibility.

Additional Submissions

Following the initial exchange, both parties submitted additional information and arguments, further developing their respective positions.

On 22 November 2022, the State Party provided updated information from the Municipality of Fiumicino, confirming that social services had summoned tenants by registered mail and conducted interviews to assess their situation, with 15 tenants, including the author, participating. The State Party confirmed details regarding the author’s family circumstances, noting that he had been laid off since 2017 and received a monthly allowance of 1,500 euros until 2023; that his spouse was not working; and that one of his children suffered from epilepsy, though without a formally recognised disability. The State Party noted that the Municipality offered ordinary welfare measures for households in socioeconomic distress, subject to a social survey and needs assessment, but that no family had formally requested such assistance.

On 17 May 2023, the author submitted that the bankruptcy court had assumed control of the proceedings, prioritising creditor repayment and threatening eviction unless tenants purchased at market-based prices, which he could not afford. The author described two meetings with municipal social workers in April and December 2022, during which the social workers refused to accept documentation proving the family’s financial fragility and offered no concrete solutions, acknowledging that regulations prevented reapplication for public housing and confirming that there were no available units. The author further noted that the second meeting revealed that the Prefecture was actively pressuring the Municipality to expedite evictions, thereby contradicting the stated purpose of social protection and the Committee’s request for interim measures.

On 19 October 2024, the author submitted that, on 12 September 2024, his family had been forcibly evicted by the court-appointed officer assisted by the police. The author reported that attempts to present the Committee’s request for interim measures were ignored, that no alternative housing was offered, and that all furniture and belongings were removed. The author concluded that irreparable harm had occurred and that the State Party had disregarded its obligations under both the Covenant and the OP-ICESCR.

Committee Decision on Admissibility and Analysis of the Merits

The Committee acknowledged that the author had exhausted all available remedies regarding his eviction claim and that the eviction orders issued failed to assess the consequences of the eviction for the author and his family, despite their vulnerable situation and the lack of alternative housing options. It also found that the bankruptcy court relied entirely on maximising creditor recovery, neglecting social dimensions embedded within the subsidised housing scheme. 

Based on the decisions of the judicial authorities, the Committee observed that the best interests of the author’s children were not taken into account when issuing the eviction orders. It was noted that domestic courts did not adequately consider the economic precarity of the author and his spouse, with a sole and limited income derived from the author’s partial access to employment and the family’s reliance on welfare assistance. The courts also overlooked the disproportionate impact the eviction would have had on the second child, given her nocturnal epilepsy.

Arrangements and effective consultation with the family should have been made to assess their situation, the author’s socioeconomic situation and any available social housing alternatives. The Committee concluded that there was no proof of a “genuine and effective judicial consultation mechanism” to assess alternative measures to eviction. As a result, the family was not provided alternative housing or temporary emergency accommodations to avoid homelessness following their displacement. The State Party did not provide an explanation for why it was unable to provide the family with a remedy for their housing situation when it first became aware of their vulnerable circumstances.

Interim Measures & Forced Eviction

On 28 July 2021, while the communication was under consideration, the Committee called for the suspension of the eviction of the author and his family, or the provision of adequate housing, in consultation with the author. The Committee highlighted that the application of interim measures, as stipulated in article 5 of the OP-ICESCR, is fundamental to the accomplishment of the Committee’s duty under the OP-ICESCR to preserve the integrity of the process and its effectiveness when there are risks of irreparable harm.

Based on the Committee’s guidelines on interim measures, the State Party was in breach of its responsibility to respect the individual communications process set out in the OP-ICESCR. Failure to respect interim measures hinders the ability of the future Views to reverse harm inflicted on victims. The State Party did not provide an explanation as to why interim measures could not be applied, for which the Committee determined that Article 5 of the OP-ICESCR had been violated.

Conclusion & Final Recommendations

Based on the facts and arguments presented in the case, the Committee determined that the eviction of the author and his family was a violation of their right to adequate housing, established within the Covenant, as well as of article 5 of the OP-ICESCR. In accordance with article 9.1 of the OP-ICESCR, the Committee viewed that the State Party had the responsibility concerning the violation of the author and his family’s right under article 11.1, in conjunction with article 10.3.

The State Party was therefore obliged to adopt measures to comply with the Committee's findings and provide an effective remedy to the author and his family, including the following measures:

1. Re-evaluating their necessities, if they lack proper housing conditions, with the aim of granting them public housing or adopting alternative measures that would allow them access to adequate housing, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Views.
2. Providing the author with monetary compensation for the infringement of his and his family’s rights.
3. Reimbursing the author for the legal costs incurred in presenting the communication.

The Committee emphasised that, in line with its international commitments, the State Party should adopt measures to ensure the non-repetition of violations of this nature. As a result, the State Party was required to ensure the alignment of its internal legislation with the international standards set out in the Covenant.