Are squatters stronger than owners?
Does the right to squatter housing prevail over the right of ownership? Is humanitarian aid stronger? The Court of Cassation puts an end to this debate by a decision of principle! investissement défiscalisant
For almost three years, Roma squatters had been occupying a site at Mas Rouge in Montpellier with caravans. The owners took legal action by explaining that they could no longer rent their land, that they had received a notice from the social services of the city because of risks of pollution and health threats (epidemic of shigellosis) caused by garbage dumps squatters and that complaints were filed against them, owners of the premises found responsible for neighborhood disturbances. comment défiscaliser en immobilier
These owners applied for and obtained their deportation before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Montpellier and then before the Court of Appeal, the judges finding “a manifestly unlawful disorder characterized by occupation without right or title”.
The squatters’ lawyer appealed to the Court of Cassation claiming that “the loss of a home is a most serious injury” for these families and their children – a hundred people – and that, consequently, magistrates should “put the right of property in balance with their right to respect for their home and their private life”. For these squatters, the orderly deportation was “disproportionate to the disturbance of enjoyment alleged by the owners”.
Until now the magistrates seized proceeded to this “balancing” according to the specific circumstances of each squat.
The Court of Cassation, for the first time, laid down a principle to settle this kind of situation: “the eviction being the only measure likely to allow the owner to recover the fullness of his right over the illicitly occupied property, the interference resulting in the right to respect for the occupant’s home, protected by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, can not be disproportionate in view of the seriousness of the infringement. extended to the right of ownership “.
The Supreme Court therefore clearly affirms the total supremacy of the right to property over the right to housing invoked by squatters and their defense associations.
The Judges add, in order to remove any ambiguity, and therefore to exclude any assessment of the circumstances, that “the absolute right of ownership, any occupation without right or title to the property of others constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance allowing the owners to obtain property. referred the expulsion of the occupants “. The humanitarian arguments invoked by the associations defending these families can not therefore prevail over the right to property, say the Supreme Court.