CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016
Court of Cassation overturned this decision.6 In a letter of 16 July 2001, the authors learned
that the Draguignan Office of the Mortgage Registrar was refusing to list the house under
their name. 7 In an attempt to solve this problem, the authors brought a case before the
Draguignan Tribunal de Grande Instance, which, in a judgment of 27 June 2002, recognized
that the sale at auction was indeed null and void.8
2.6
The tenant of the house took advantage of this imbroglio to stop paying her rent. On
20 October 2000, the authors sent her an order for payment of 163,424.76 francs (€24,914),
an amount equal to the unpaid rent. The tenant turned to the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande
Instance.9 Crédit foncier de France, faced with the tenant’s refusal to pay her rent, brought
an action before the same court with a view to securing a writ of execution naming her. On
3 June 2003, the court declared the garnishment order null and void on the grounds that,
under the Code of Civil Procedure, seizure of immovables and garnishment of rent cannot be
carried out simultaneously. Crédit foncier de France appealed.
2.7
In April 2002, the authors decided to pay €777.49 a month, one third of their monthly
income, to Crédit foncier de France, which collected the money. Crédit foncier de France,
with a view to foreclosing on the house, had the authors listed as the real owners with the
Office of the Mortgage Registrar. On 26 November 2004,10 the Draguignan court rejected the
authors’ arguments and ordered that the auction be held on 14 January 2005. On 6 September
2005, the Marseille Tribunal de Grande Instance11 found that Crédit foncier de France was
at fault and had caused the authors to suffer compensable damage. The court, however, did
not determine the exact amount to be awarded in compensation and decided to defer the case
pending the “forthcoming” decision of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence. On the same
day, the Court of Appeal, reversing the judgment of the Draguignan court, ordered the
eviction of the tenant for lack of renters’ insurance.
2.8
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeal, ruling on the lending institution’s appeal of
the judgment of the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande Instance of 3 June 2003, upheld the
cancellation of the garnishment order. On 1 December 2006, the Court of Appeal, again,
ruling on Crédit foncier de France’s appeal of the judgment of the Marseille court of 6
September 2005, recognized the harm that had been done to the authors by their lender but
reproached them for their negligence between 21 September 2000 and 11 June 2004, without
taking into account the violation of their right to a fair trial. The authors lodged an application
for judicial review that was rejected on 6 November 2008 for want of serious grounds for
admission.
2.9
On 28 March 2008, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 26 November 2004
ordering the sale of the authors’ house at auction.12 On 29 September 2011, the Court of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
GE.21-01892
The litigants were put back in the legal situation that had prevailed before the overturned judgment
and thus before the sale of the house.
This refusal was the result of missing documents.
The Office maintained its refusal until August 2003.
The court found that, as a result of the garnishment of 14 August 1998, the rent claims were assets of
Crédit foncier de France. On 17 September 2002, the authors sued for the eviction of their tenant for
lack of insurance. On 17 December 2002, the court, to which the tenant had applied, refused to order
that she be evicted until, by paying her rent, she had settled the debt still held by Crédit foncier de
France. On 15 February 2006, the tenant was tried by the Draguignan Correctional Court for having
built a building, without a building permit, on the authors’ property. On 31 March 2007, the tenant
finally vacated the premises. The authors moved in, but as the house was in very bad shape, it took
them a year to repair it.
The hearing of 30 July 2004 was postponed to 24 September 2004 at the request of Crédit foncier de
France. As it had still not made its written submissions by then, the judge rescheduled the hearing for
15 October 2004. Crédit foncier de France’s submissions were made available to the authors on 12
October 2004, three days before the scheduled hearing. They were granted a postponement of the
hearing until 26 November 2004.
On 16 December 2003, the authors had decided to call Crédit foncier de France and the successful
bidders at the auction that had been found null and void before the Marseille Tribunal de Grande
Instance with a view to obtaining compensation for all the damage they had suffered.
The authors applied to the State for exceptional financial assistance. They then requested the
suspension of the foreclosure proceedings. The judge rejected this request, and the authors appealed.
3