CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 Cassation rejected the authors’ application without explanation. The court auction was scheduled for 24 February 2012. The authors had an oral statement recorded in which they referred to the invalidity of the seizure. The judge presiding over the court auction agreed with Crédit foncier de France that the postponement of the hearing had been requested by the authors. 2.10 The house was sold for €255,000, even though it had been appraised at €528,000 in 2009. Of this amount, the authors received €105,000. Having been ordered to pay damages (€3,000) for vexatious litigation, the authors filed an application for judicial review. On 11 July 2013, the Court of Cassation rejected all the authors’ claims but the one concerning the payment of damages, as the judge of the lower court had not shown how the tort was legally recognizable. On 20 June 2014, the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande Instance, having been remanded the case, ordered the authors to pay a fine of €1,500 for vexatious litigation. 13 2.11 The authors lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 October 2014. In a letter of 20 November 2014, they were informed, after it had been considered by the Court sitting in a single-judge formation, that their application was inadmissible on the grounds that it did not meet the conditions laid down in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). Although France has made a reservation to the Optional Protocol preventing the same case from being considered by the Committee when it has already been considered by the European Court, the authors note that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, such reservations do not apply to applications rejected by the European Court on procedural grounds alone.14 2.12 In all, the proceedings in the French courts lasted 26 years (from 1987 to 2013), and 40 court decisions were handed down. The authors fought to keep their home and found themselves losing out, even though their house was worth considerably more than what they owed Crédit foncier de France. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim to be victims of a violation by the State of article 17 (1) of the Covenant, in connection with the protection of the home. They are of the view that they have been subjected to arbitrary interference with their home, which has twice been taken away from them by court order.15 At the time of the first auction, the amount they owed was much less than the amount for which the house sold. Garnishing the rent they collected from the first tenant would have been more proportionate and appropriate. There were other means of reimbursing Crédit foncier de France and the contractor. Similarly, for the second sale, there were no specific circumstances warranting such disproportionate treatment by the national authorities, and there were still possible alternatives16 to the auction. The authors also allege a violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant, as they believe that they are victims of arbitrary interference with their right to privacy17 and of an attack on their honour and reputation.18 3.2 In addition, the authors submit that article 14 (1) of the Covenant has been violated insofar as their property rights are a civil right. 19 They are of the view that this article was 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 4 On 2 July 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande Instance, so the foreclosure had to proceed. The authors did not appeal, as their conduct had already been found wrongful or, indeed, even vexatious. Vincent v. France (CCPR/C/91/D/1505/2006), para. 7.2. Judgments of 11 September 1998 and 24 February 2012 of the Draguignan Tribunal de Grande Instance. In particular, the authors’ monthly payment of €777.49 to Crédit foncier de France since April 2002 and the seizure of only one of the lots. Furthermore, if the compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence on 1 December 2006 had covered all the damages, the sale would not have been necessary. The threat of bailiffs’ repossessing their home or seizing bank accounts or any other amounts of money that might be paid to them has pervaded the authors’ daily lives since 1993. The house is located in a small town where legal proceedings are extremely rare. See Deisl v. Austria (CCPR/C/81/D/1060/2002) and Czernin v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/83/D/823/1998). GE.21-01892