CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations on admissibility dated 6 May 2015, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible on four grounds. First, the communication does not provide sufficient information about the author and his circumstances. Specifically, although the author claims that he was evicted and was unable to find alternative accommodation, he does not provide details about the alleged evictions and his current housing situation. Moreover, the author does not specify his current address. Although he claims to be experiencing continuing economic and social deprivation, he does not provide information about his current economic and social situation. Although he claims to have suffered interference with his family, he provides no information about his family. 4.2 The communication is also inadmissible because it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. There were several long delays in the proceedings, and they are solely attributable to the author and/or his counsel. Firstly, the author submitted the communication almost eight and a half years after the alleged demolition, even though the issue of eviction without alternative accommodation being provided calls for a prompt response. Although the criminal investigation relating to the events in the Makrygianni area ended in 2012, counsel for the author stated in Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece that instituting criminal proceedings against individuals deemed responsible for the demolition of a makeshift house was not a legal option that would allow the author to return to the plot of land from which he had been evicted.5 Thus, the criminal proceedings are irrelevant to the analysis at hand. Secondly, the author’s counsel made initial submissions for a communication about the Riganokampos eviction in June 2007 and February 2008, 6 whereas he waited until January 2015 (more than seven years later) to submit the present communication. Counsel claims that the circumstances in both cases are identical. Four and a half years have elapsed since the Committee issued its Views on the communication concerning the Riganokampos eviction. Thirdly, two years elapsed between the time when the author gave his counsel authorization to represent him in proceedings before the Committee (in January 2013) and the submission of the present communication (in January 2015). Finally, the communication was submitted more than eight months after counsel was advised to split the author’s claims from those in Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece and to present them separately. Counsel’s explanation that the latter delay was attributable to workload and resource constraints is unconvincing, since counsel only had to resubmit the author’s communication separately. 4.3 In addition, the communication is inadmissible because it is unsubstantiated and lacks a concrete factual basis. The author is litigating by analogy. Instead of presenting the facts at hand in a clear and detailed manner, he merely likens the present communication to Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece and requests the Committee to reach the same conclusion. The Georgopoulos case involved different authors whose makeshift home had been demolished in a different area of Patras on different dates. The authors of that case pursued their claim immediately after the events. The present communication does not describe the circumstances under which the alleged eviction took place. Moreover, there are significant inconsistencies between the communication and the statement that the author gave before the Three-Member Misdemeanour Court of Patras. In the communication, the author states that after the July 2006 eviction he resettled in the Roma settlement of Votanikos in Athens. However, he testified before the court that after the July 2006 eviction, he resettled in the Makrygianni area until 2007, when his new shack was demolished. The court found that the author had not lawfully owned his makeshift home, and had not been lawfully using it, as he had only used it occasionally. The court also found that the home appeared to be abandoned, because the author had been away for many months working on a nearby island. The court also considered that the author’s alleged intent to return to the settlement could not be known to any person. The author does not contest the aforementioned findings of the court, nor does he advance a different factual narrative. 4.4 Finally, the communication is inadmissible because the author’s claims on behalf of Roma people exceed the scope permitted by individual communications. 5 6 The State party cites Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece, para. 3.1. Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece. 5