The case of Lorne Joseph Walters v. Belgium. Views of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of October 12, 2021. Communication No. 61/2018.
In 2018, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Belgium.
Since the author of the communication, an elderly person, was provided with compensation and notification, but the alternative housing options offered to him did not meet the sufficiency criterion, as well as taking into account the excessive impact that the termination of the lease agreement had on him as an elderly person with a low income, the Committee concluded: inflexible application of legislation in relation to rent and the corresponding The eviction procedure constituted a violation by the State party of the author's right to adequate housing, as enshrined in article 11, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, on August 21, 2017, the author was informed by the owner of the apartment he rented about her decision to terminate the lease agreement in compliance with the requirements for payment of compensation to him in the amount of six months' rent and sending him a corresponding notification six months before the date of termination of the contract. The validity of this notification was recognized by the court of first instance, and then confirmed by the first chamber of the French-speaking court of First Instance in Brussels, which ruled on the author's appeal. However, the court granted the author a postponement to vacate the apartment until September 30, 2018. On 17 September 2018, the bailiff informed the author that his eviction was scheduled for 8 October 2018. Due to the author's hospitalization, the eviction was postponed until October 17, 2018. The Committee noted that on 17 October 2018, the author was evicted from his home. This apartment was put up for rent at a higher price. Since then, the author has been living with friends, is registered with at least one social housing authority and notified the authorities that he needs an apartment of about 80 square meters so that he can store his belongings and receive his granddaughters when they come to him from Canada, if possible, with a small terrace. The author was only offered accommodation in a shelter or a nursing home, which, in his opinion, did not meet his needs (paragraphs 8.2 - 8.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was established that the author was notified of the termination of the lease agreement in accordance with current legislation, which guaranteed him to receive notification six months before the end date of the lease and compensation in the amount of six months' rent. The issue of this termination of the contract was considered by three judicial authorities, in which the author, with the help of a lawyer, was able to present all his allegations, analyzed in compliance with all guarantees (paragraph 11.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee noted that in this case, the law applied in the State party allowed the landlord to terminate the lease without a reason, but at the same time provided substantial guarantees for the tenant: the lease cannot be terminated at any time, and, as was the case with the author, the landlord must notify the tenant in advance of the termination of the contract and pay compensation to him. In addition, in some cases, the judge may grant a delay to protect tenants in a vulnerable position. Thanks to these guarantees provided for tenants, this legislation is generally and abstracto compatible with the Covenant and the right to adequate housing (paragraph 12.1 of the Considerations).
The inflexible application of this law in the specific conditions of rising rents in the Brussels-capital region and taking into account the special needs of older people could have an excessively negative impact on low-income older people. Such excessive exposure may be the result of specific market conditions combined with inflexible application of legislation (paragraph 12.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee noted that people over the age of 64 are more likely than other groups of the population to face a situation of termination of a lease agreement (paragraph 12.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee considered that in this case neither the judicial authorities nor the social services had sufficiently taken into account the possible excessive consequences of forced relocation for particularly vulnerable persons, such as elderly people in difficult financial situations. And this happened despite the fact that the author lived in his rented apartment for 25 years, always fulfilled his contractual obligations and at the moment was already an elderly man with a small income, but strong social ties in his area (paragraph 12.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee stressed that the State party could take various measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to mitigate the effects of the application of relevant legislation on the author. For example, a mediation procedure could be used to adjust the rent with the financial support of the State party in order to make it available to the author. Due to the lack of flexibility in the application of the law on this issue, neither this nor any other option allowing the author to stay in a rented apartment has been studied. This option seemed very reasonable, given the indisputable facts set out in this message, namely that the landlord continued to rent the apartment at a higher price. In these circumstances, if the law were more flexible, the State party could, to the maximum extent of its available resources, provide the author with a subsidy that would allow him to continue living in a rented apartment (paragraph 12.5 of the Considerations).
In this context, the author's request for alternative housing, which would avoid the rupture of all existing social ties, cannot be called unfounded, especially given that the State party has one of the highest per capita income indicators in the world (paragraph 12.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee found that the author had been offered two accommodation options: a shelter or a nursing home. The author rejected these proposals as they could not serve as an acceptable alternative that would meet his needs. In these circumstances, the Committee decided that the accommodation options offered to the author - a shelter or a nursing home - go beyond the criterion of sufficiency of temporary housing, taking into account the special needs of the author as an elderly person, especially since, as already noted, the application of the legislation of the State party, allowing to terminate the lease agreement without reason, created special difficulties in the housing market for vulnerable persons - for groups of the population who find it increasingly difficult to find adequate alternative housing in their urban environment. This is especially true for low-income families with children and the elderly, whose economic opportunities are extremely limited (paragraph 12.7 of the Considerations).
According to the information provided in the preceding paragraphs, that is, taking into account that the author was provided with compensation and notification, but the alternative housing options offered to him did not meet the sufficiency criterion, as well as taking into account the excessive impact that the termination of the lease agreement had on him as an elderly person with a low income, the Committee concluded: in the present case, the inflexible application of the rental legislation and the related eviction procedure constituted a violation by the State party of the author's right to adequate housing, enshrined in article 11, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant (paragraph 12.8 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party violated the author's right under article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.