CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 5.3 The State party reiterates that the claim of arbitrary interference with the authors’ home should be declared inadmissible, because this claim actually relates to the right to property, which is not guaranteed under the Covenant. Furthermore, the disputed property cannot be described as their home. The contested proceedings for the repossession of their house in Fayence lasted from 1998 to 2013. However, inasmuch as the authors do not show that they lived in the house over the course of the proceedings, it cannot be regarded as their home during that period. As article 17 of the Covenant is, given the facts of the case, inapplicable, the complaint must be dismissed. 5.4 With regard to the foreclosure proceedings, the State party argues that interference with the home is compatible with article 17 of the Covenant if it is provided for by law, consistent with the aims and objectives of the Covenant and “reasonable in the particular circumstances”. All these conditions are met in this case, as the foreclosures were lawful, and, under the Civil Code (art. 2204), foreclosure is an option available to creditors. The authors failed to honour their contract with Crédit foncier de France by not paying back their loan in full, despite the long periods of time available to them as a result of the many legal proceedings they initiated. Crédit foncier de France and then the Compagnie de financement foncier were thus entitled to collect on their claim by requesting the sale of the mortgaged property. Lastly, the proceedings by which the sales at auction were ordered adhered to the proportionality principle. The auctions themselves were thus reasonable. The authors’ very large debt and the long period of time over which they failed to ensure that it was settled, points to the necessity and reasonableness of the forced sale criticized before the Committee. Their property was sold at auction for €255,000 by the Draguignan court in its judgment of 24 February 2012. 5.5 The authors, in an attempt to contest the reasonableness of this interference, contend that their property was one of several lots serving as collateral for the mortgage from the Compagnie de financement foncier. In their view, the mortgage holder should have been satisfied with repossessing but one lot. In accordance with article 2393 of the Civil Code, “mortgage is, by nature, an indivisible right that burdens the entirety of the immovable property mortgaged, including each component part thereof”. Because of this indivisibility, the seizure concerns all the mortgaged lots. Moreover, the scope of the seizure was determined by the very nature of the mortgage to which they had consented. The Court of Cassation, for the rest, nullified the first foreclosure proceedings initiated by Crédit foncier de France, in its judgment of 21 September 2000, on procedural grounds. After this decision, and despite the passage of several years, the authors did not discharge their debt or voluntarily sell their property to satisfy the lender, leading it to initiate foreclosure proceedings again. In this respect, the authors, who were seeking the nullification of the award of the loan in 1987, challenging the lawfulness of the proceedings and requesting the cancellation of their debt, filed four challenges, on 23 July 2004, 29 May 2009, 20 February 2012 and 24 October 2013. It is clear from all the decisions that were taken that the challenges filed by the authors were considered, that their rights were respected during the consideration of those challenges and that they were rejected only because they were unfounded. 5.6 With regard to the Office of the Mortgage Registrar’s refusal to register the Court of Cassation’s decision of 21 September 2000 nullifying the first sale at auction at the Office, a refusal that, according to the authors, deprived them of their rights to their property, the State party maintains that counsel for the authors did not follow the rules, as their registration application was incomplete. The refusal with which the authors found fault was therefore lawful. At no time did the authors make use of the remedies available to contest this refusal. 5.7 With regard to the claim of arbitrary interference with the authors’ privacy because of the constant threat of the seizure of their property, the State party submits that this situation is simply a consequence of the proceedings criticized by the authors. These proceedings have been shown not to be contrary to the provisions of the Covenant. In support of their claim that their honour and reputation have been attacked, the authors refer to the case Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium (CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006), but the State party is of the view that the circumstances are comparable neither with regard to the nature of the alleged attack nor with regard to its seriousness. The procedure for the sale at auction of the authors’ property has been shown not to have been contrary to the provisions of the Covenant. Furthermore, the GE.21-01892 7