A new front opens for the government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso thanks to the sale of 3,000 public housing units more than ten years ago to Goldman Sachs for 200 million euros. Justice has pronounced two different judgments in favor of two victims evicted by Encasa Cibeles, a company created to manage the purchase of these apartments and in which the American fund holds a 97% stake, and obliges the regional executive to grant them . a social annuity.
The sale promoted by the government of Ignacio González (PP) in 2013 not only left the successful bidders without social and public protection, but also generated an endless problem (for the moment) for the different government teams. Since Justice declared this operation null and void in 2018, the Madrid institution has had a series of legal setbacks to try to prevent the recovery of the 1,700 homes still held by the fund. Ultimately, it was Ayuso’s team that began to overturn the operation promoted by González.
The fiasco of the sale of thousands of social housing units resulted in a million-dollar bill for Madrid’s public coffers, but it also affected the 3,000 residents who had obtained public apartments. The exact number of people affected by this operation is unknown. Azucena (fictitious name) and her three children were among them. In 2009, they acquired one of these properties and received a 95% rent reduction for “special needs”. With the change of ownership, they lost their social benefits and could not pay the rent that Encasa Cibeles demanded of them. His case ended, like that of many of his neighbors, in eviction. They left their home in 2016.
After the cancellation of the sale of 3,000 public apartments, Azucena began the procedure to obtain a new social apartment. The plaintiff bases her request on two arguments, “her vulnerable situation” – as indicated in the judgment – and the consequences for her and her family of the contract between the fund and the administration.
The Ayuso government rejected her request, but a lower court overturned the autonomous resolution and recognized the plaintiff’s “right to have ASV.” [Agencia Social de Vivienda] “assign him, for rental purposes, accommodation belonging to the Community of Madrid, based on his particular needs,” indicates the judgment rendered on September 23 and consulted by elDiario.es. The ministry is already moving forward with this formulation which will appeal this judicial decision.
“It is true that the granting of social housing for rent in accordance with a certain social assistance program does not imply that the Administration acquires a permanent obligation and continues to resolve” the housing situation, explains the judgment, in which the magistrate also recalls that article 47 of the Spanish Constitution recognizes the right to a roof as “a guiding principle of social and economic policy”. And, regarding Azucena’s request, he concludes: “The Administration which recovered ownership of the housing transferred by a contract declared null and void, must respond to the applicant’s housing need that it itself created. ”
“Inexcusable neglect” of the administration
This is not the first decision that recognizes the right to social housing of a person affected by the sale of social apartments and evicted by Encasa Cibeles. Another judge, in this case from the contentious administrative court number 30 of Madrid, also ruled in the same direction. In this case, the decision was made in April and the regional government appealed. As confirmed by the sources consulted by this editorial staff, the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid will have to rule on this matter.
In this second sentence, the judge mentions several errors by the administration, including sending the procedural documents to the home from which they had been expelled. A decision that he considers to be “inexcusable negligence” and which left the complainant “defenseless”. The promoter of this claim, expelled in 2019, is another woman who obtained social housing in 2007. She benefits from a recognized degree of disability of 66% and a pension of 743 euros.
In Azucena’s case, AVS rejected her request because, at the time the reversion of the Encasa Cibeles apartments began, she was no longer on the fund’s list of tenants. The Community did not “evaluate the social and economic circumstances” in which the applicant found itself, recalls the judgment.
Furthermore, the defense of the autonomous government alleged that the Supreme Court had already rejected “a similar case” in which “the request for allocation of housing” of another person involved in the sale of public housing had was also rejected. However, the judge does not accept these justifications. He asserts that Azucena cannot be “harmed by an administrative action declared void and made final.”
