The communication, adopted on 16 February 2024, concerns the eviction of two families from a dwelling that they were occupying without legal title in Rome. The authors of the communications, both Moroccan nationals, are Hamid Saydawi and Masir Farah. Before the UN Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee (CESCR), they claimed that Italy violated their rights under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Adequate standards of living) and demanded the right to adequate housing.

The Authors’ Residence and Community in Rome

The authors of the communications to the CESCR, Moroccan nationals residing in Italy, lived with their families in houses that were part of a block originally built by the U.S. Army during World War II and were later abandoned, becoming hubs for illicit activity before the authors moved in. The authors note that they had a considerable emotional attachment to the houses and invested a great deal of work and money in renovation works. The 24 neighbours, including seven minors, were very close and supported one another. Along with other migrant families, the authors renovated and maintained the houses over many years. According to the information available to the residents, the houses had no formal owner, and the local authorities informally told them that they could remain in the houses even if it was impossible to provide them with a formal title. They also expressed appreciation for the residents' efforts to improve security and rehabilitate the area.

Legal Disputes and Eviction Proceedings

In 2008, the Italian State railway company (Ferrovie dello Stato Italiaprovidingne) acquired the property and initiated eviction proceedings, citing safety concerns and claiming the houses were in a ruinous condition. Despite a 2009 court ruling acknowledging the authors’ long-term residence and dismissing the railway company’s complaint, subsequent inspections deemed the houses unsafe. In 2012, a civil court ordered the eviction of the residents and imposed financial penalties on them for illegal occupation. However, enforcement of the eviction was delayed for years, and during this time, the authors continued to renovate the property. In 2021, a firm eviction order was issued without the provision of alternative housing.

Claims of Housing Rights Violations

The authors alleged that Italy failed to protect their right to adequate housing under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). They argued that the eviction process, which would render them homeless, violated their dignity and fundamental rights. Mr. Saydawi, living with his wife in precarious financial conditions due to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, stated he would face homelessness upon eviction. Mr. Farah, living with his family, including a disabled elderly mother and two young children, expressed similar concerns about homelessness and its impact on his family’s well-being. Both applicants highlighted the lack of viable housing options offered by the authorities. The emergency housing solutions proposed would have split families, separating men from women and children, which they found unacceptable. They contended that their long-term residence, the investment made in maintaining the houses, and their socioeconomic vulnerability were not adequately considered by the authorities.

Italy’s Defense and Counter-Arguments

Italy argued that the communications were inadmissible due to the authors’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It emphasized that effective remedies, including appeals within the judicial system, were available. The State highlighted existing welfare measures, such as emergency income schemes and housing subsidies, and noted that temporary accommodation was offered but rejected by the authors. Regarding the merits, the State maintained that the eviction orders were lawful and proportionate, considering the authors’ lack of legal ownership or tenancy rights. It asserted that the housing solutions offered aligned with its obligations under the Covenant. The authors countered that domestic remedies were inaccessible due to high costs and systemic barriers. They argued that legislative reforms had made appeals prohibitively expensive for low-income individuals, effectively denying them access to justice. They also rejected the claim that temporary shelters constituted an adequate solution, emphasizing that such arrangements would disrupt family unity and fail to meet minimum standards of adequate housing. The authors criticized the lack of meaningful consultation or tailored solutions, noting that authorities had been aware of their housing situation and requests for social housing for over a decade.

Committee’s consideration of admissibility

The Committee reviewed the communications under the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, which requires the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies before seeking international recourse. It also assessed whether the claims were compatible with the Covenant. The Committee observed that the authors had demonstrated that appealing the firm eviction order of 2021 was not a viable remedy, as it required new evidence and would have imposed undue financial burdens. The authors’ financial vulnerability and the high cost of legal proceedings made further domestic remedies inaccessible. The State’s arguments regarding the availability of remedies were deemed insufficient, as it failed to identify specific effective or accessible alternatives. The Committee emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the State to demonstrate the existence of such remedies. Given these considerations, the Committee declared the communications admissible. It found that the authors had met all procedural requirements under Articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.

What indicates the violation of rights to adequate housing?

The Committee undertook to assess the situation. The main objections brought up by the authors of the communication were related to Article 11 of the Covenant, which states:

“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”

The Committee stated their official view that the human right to adequate housing is a fundamental right of central importance for the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights. To comply with the provisions of Covenant the State party should take whatever steps are necessary for that purpose, to the maximum of their available resources. Authorities should also act in accordance with the general principles of reasonableness and of proportionality.

The Committee listed five requirements by which the eviction is justifiable.

●   limitation of the right to adequate housing must be determined by law;

●   it must promote general welfare in a democratic society;

●   it must be suited to the legitimate purpose cited;

●   limitation must be necessary, in the sense that, if various means of achieving the goal pursued could reasonably be expected to succeed, the one that interferes least with the right must be used;

●   benefits of the limitation in promoting general welfare must outweigh the impact on the enjoyment of the right being limited.

Referring to those requirements in this case, the Committee found that the conditions had not been met by the State party and the eviction was not justified. The authorities were aware of the family's situation for several years. Both Saydawi and Farah had requested social housing since 2021 without any adequate response from the State party. By not being able to provide families with an acceptable alternative, the state is violating their rights. Eviction would leave the men homeless and separated from their families, which would harm their human dignity. The authors' income would not allow them to pay for a house on their own. The Committee clearly emphasized the duty of the State in the document, citing General Comment No.7 from 1997, which expresses that

“Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.”

The Committee also observed that the rule of proportionality was ignored by the authorities. The State party did not take personal circumstances into account, did not attempt to cooperate with the Saydawi and Farah or did not provide a suitable alternative, which shows a clear disregard of the principle of proportionality. Despite the authors' efforts to find a solution to the difficult situation and requests to ensure the right to adequate housing, the State party abandoned its duties.

Final remarks

The final judicial decision had a positive result for Saydawi and Farah. The Committee, based on the evidence presented in the communications, found a violation by the State party of the authors’ right to housing under Article 11 of the Covenant. The recommendations given to Italy comprise the states’ obligations to reassess the claim for adequate housing of the authors, provide financial compensation, and reimburse the legal costs of domestic and international judicial proceedings. The State party also should prevent similar violations in the future, ensuring an adequate normative framework and maximizing the available resources.

The Views issued in 2024 highlighted the most important points that indicate the development of the right to adequate housing, especially in consideration of Italy’s deteriorating situation in this matter. It calls for actions not only by the State, but also Municipalities and Regions. The obligations stated by the Committee should be adopted, as the follow-up review will proceed in the near future.