In recent days, the media has prominently covered the amendment by the Justice Committee of the Congress of Deputies to the Civil Procedure Law to expedite the eviction of illegally occupied dwellings. This attention is understandable. In recent years, Spain has experienced a significant problem due to the proliferation of unlawful conduct involving the occupation of others’ homes. Behind these occupations, there are in many cases perfectly organized movements or operations.
Criminal law provides a legal response to this type of conduct, but in practice the solution to these occupations has been sought within civil proceedings. This is because criminal law has been considered a mechanism of last resort among the different courses of action available to the State, and because, in some cases, the courts responsible for applying criminal law have demonstrated an excessively cautious attitude. All of this delays the satisfaction of the legitimate right of the owner or tenant to recover possession of the illegally occupied dwelling.
There is unanimous agreement that this phenomenon of illegal occupation of properties constitutes both a legal and a social order problem. That is why it is surprising that the legislative initiative favors the ability of certain owners to recover possession of their dwellings while limiting this same ability in the case of others, such as banks. This is incomprehensible from the standpoint of the direct purpose of the initiative, which does not hesitate to describe the phenomenon of illegal occupations as extremely harmful. It is also incomprehensible from a legal perspective, as it establishes an unjustifiable discrimination regarding the right of access to justice, which represents a clear disregard for the principle of equality. It is likewise incomprehensible from the standpoint of public order and civic coexistence, given the problems that illegal occupation phenomena generate in those residential communities where they occur. Furthermore, the Congress initiative may constitute a genuine, and paradoxical, incentive for the occupation of dwellings belonging to those owners whom the regulation has not deemed worthy of such special protection.
We trust that the various voices that have highlighted the need to address the problem in its entirety, and not only partially, will prompt political groups to reflect, and that throughout the parliamentary processing of this initiative the error of omission can be rectified. If only for the sake of safeguarding elementary constitutional principles.
Javier Rodriguez Pellitero, Secretary General of the Spanish Banking Association
