CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 denial of justice and the excessive length of the proceedings. None of these complaints, however, has been submitted to a domestic court. In the domestic proceedings before the Court of Cassation, the authors never referred to the lack of impartiality of the judge of the Draguignan court, although they could have done so. The same applies to a possible denial of justice. Finally, as regards the excessive length of the proceedings, in France there is a procedure governed by article L141-1 of the Code of Judicial Organization that allows the parties concerned to obtain compensation for damage caused by the improper administration of justice. The authors have not availed themselves of this procedure or made a complaint to the domestic courts in this respect. 4.4 The complaints regarding arbitrary interference with the authors’ privacy and attacks on their honour and reputation, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant, as well as alleged inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7, have never been invoked or even simply sketched out in the various judicial proceedings before the domestic courts. 4.5 Lastly, the final grievances – namely, those concerning arbitrary interference with the authors’ home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant, and violations of the right to execution of the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 21 September 2000, under article 14 of the Covenant, and of the right to full compensation for the harm they were done, under articles 14 and 17 of the Covenant – have not been invoked before the domestic courts, either. 4.6 With these last three grievances, the authors intend to contest before the Committee, as they did before the domestic courts, the justification for the sale at auction of their house, as ordered in two court decisions, and the continuing threat of foreclosure on their house. 4.7 In connection with their claim of arbitrary interference with their home, the authors’ submission states, for example: “In practice, Mr. and Mrs. F. owned their home but had no title to it vis-à-vis third parties. The legally unjustified refusal of the Office of the Mortgage Registrar is therefore a second instance of arbitrary interference with the authors’ home.” Similarly, with regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Covenant arising from the failure to enforce the Court of Cassation’s ruling of 21 September 2000, the submission states: Between July 2001 and August 2003, the Draguignan Office of the Mortgage Registrar refused, on no legal basis, to comply with the decision of the Court of Cassation of 21 September 2000, which, by reversing the judgment handed down by Judge X on the grounds that it constituted a violation of the norms of the adversarial justice system and thus of a right protected under the Covenant, restored to the authors their rightful ownership of their home. As for the violation of the right to full compensation for damages, the authors believe that they have not been able to obtain such compensation and that if they had been able to do so “they would now be owners of their home”. 4.8 It is in fact a violation of their property rights that the authors are seeking to claim before the Committee. The right to property, however, is not guaranteed under the Covenant, as the Committee pointed out in its decisions in a number of cases. 25 4.9 In order to circumvent the problem of the Committee’s lack of competence, the authors claim violations of other rights protected under the Covenant and attempt to include under those rights aspects of the right to property. Additional observations by the State party on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 23 December 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. 5.2 The State party notes that the authors complain of two legal proceedings, the first initiated by Crédit foncier de France and the second by the Compagnie de financement foncier, which twice led to the sale at auction of the authors’ property. 25 6 Anton v. Algeria (CCPR/C/88/D/1424/2005), para. 8.2, and Simunek et al. v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992), para. 11.3. GE.21-01892