The Spanish government approved new “urgent” measures to help needy families facing home eviction. But the measures stop short of changing the Spanish law on mortgage repayment, which some judges find “abusive”.
The measures consist of a two-year moratorium of home evictions of families in especially difficult circumstances and the creation of homes with low rents for those evicted.
The measures are similar to a voluntary code of conduct on evictions set in place in March for the Spanish banks, which had very limited effects. The scope of potential beneficiaries has now been slightly amplified. In order to avoid being evicted from home, the household must make less than 19,200 euro a year and have a child below the age of three, or be a large family – i.e. a couple with three or more children or a single parent with at least two children – or with a family member who is either a victim of domestic violence, or disabled, or has a serious illness.
The rushed move comes after a month of increased attention on the mounting forced evictions in Spain and which culminated with the suicide of a 53-year-old woman who jumped from her balcony as she was being evicted from her family home last Friday. It was the third ‘eviction’ suicide or suicide attempt in Spain in just as many weeks.
One man facing eviction hanged himself at the end of October and the following day another man jumped from his balcony – he survived the fall.
The worsening economic crisis and the record high unemployment rate of 25 percent has only aggravated the foreclosures of family homes and businesses properties when people find themselves unable to pay back their mortgage.
There have been a total of almost 400,000 evictions since the crisis started in Spain and the pace has accelerated in the last few months with around 50,000 in the first six-month of 2012 alone. The numbers also include evictions of business properties and second residence.
There have been several motions against the law on mortgage repayment lately. In October, an internal working paper of seven judges in Spain denounced the legal system of evictions as being “abusive” and called for change.
Last week, Advocate General Juliane Kokott stated in a non-biding report that she believed that the Spanish law on mortgages is “incompatible” with EU law because it does not sufficiently protect consumers from banks.
The Spanish system does not sufficiently protect the consumer against possible abusive clauses in mortgage contracts, because it allows evictions to take place before the debtor can claim damages, Ms Kokott argued. The European Court of Justice is expected to hand down its verdict early next year on a query from a court in Barcelona handling a case on forced eviction.
In Spain, even after being evicted people are liable for repaying large amounts on their mortgage as the value of their property has plunged in the crisis.
The social tragedy has led to an increasingly growing social mobilisation against the forced evictions. Associations such as Stop Desahucios (Stop Evictions) and the Plataforma de los Afectados por la Hipoteca (the Platform for Mortgage Victims) offer advice and human barriers at planned evictions.
Local police units have also disclaimed their unease of forced evictions, which sometimes come to clashes between police and protesters supporting families destined for evictions. A couple of city councils have even ordered their local police not to assist in forced evictions.
Yesterday’s measures was planned to be a bipartisan agreement between the governing Partido Popular and the Socialist Party in opposition. However, the negotiations failed because the Socialist Party wanted the urgent measures to include a guarantee that there would be a reform of the Spanish law on mortgage repayment – something they themselves refused to do when in power between 2004 and 2011 (and which they have now apologised for).
Spanish President Mariano Rajoy and his government then went ahead approving their own measures. Some argue the government fears that talking about changing the mortgage repayment law could create insecurities on the financial markets – something they want to avoid just before Europe is set to give the Spanish banks an around 60 billion euro cash injection.
As an end note it is worth mentioning that neither one of the two who committed suicide in the last few weeks would have been likely to be affected by the new moratorium on home evictions. None of them fitted the new conditions needed to benefit from the two-year moratorium on home eviction.
They were victims of the social tragedy that is becoming increasingly profound as the economic crisis prolongs.
#1 by Victor on November 16, 2012 - 5:51 pm
Of the so-called PIIGS, Spain actually has the toughest road ahead. Ireland´s is richer and has more employment potential. Portugal, Greece and Italy didn´t have such a big housing bubble.
Even before the bubble burst, Spanish young people had a hard time finding jobs and affording housing. This was not a secret.
How societies can tolerate having both high rates of vacant properties and homelessness is immoral.
A two year moratorium just shows how short sighted politicians are. Does the government really think in 2 years things will be back to normal?
Has housing affordability in Spain improved or were have the bank bailouts had the effect of keeping the prices artificially inflated (as has been the case elsewhere)?
#2 by Wim on November 26, 2012 - 2:52 pm
It is just logical that the rich should pay for a crisis. The poor don’t have the money and trying to get it from them anyway results in a lot of friction costs – that are economically harmful in themselves – as we see here with the Spanish evictions.
Unfortunately some of our politicians keep listening to the lobbyists for the rich who talk them into supporting bankrupt banks out of fear for “loss of confidence” and who raise the specter of the rich entrepreneurs and CEOs leaving when taxes are too high. In fact very few leave and those who do are so money-oriented that they are prone to fraud too.
#3 by Clarissa Smith on November 29, 2012 - 1:03 am
During this year’s Obama reelection campaign, Republicans often tried to lever out my Keynesian argumentation, by tagging Spain as former socialist big spender. I’ve always been able to brush off these morons anyhow, though still have to learn a lot about south Europe….
I’m interested in Spain, to really understand the past causes of this nation’s present condition.
Frankly, my view on Spain isn’t that of a progressive country at all. Once a radio reporter told, his refusing plastic shopping bags wasn’t tolerated by Spanish cashiers. They shook their heads — and this within the 21st century! Being green/eco that way obviously was considered kinda screwy.
Repeating history: The Spanish reports on evictions as protests and efforts to prevent evictions also were to hear in the U.S. as still happen there. In Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” you find this kind of stories within the 1930s Great Depression — suicides included.
Of course Obama’s reelection was the only choice to prevent total GOP insanity. So I downright had to cut out being a lefty. I really had to fake the at least moderate liberal, which was tough! Now I feel like going to the left — asking myself: Can I really trust European socialists? For if they consider themselves Keynesians, they might be sort of blue-dogs (right-wing Democrats, or should I say disguised Republicans?). And what is a Socialist? Should he have a beard like Karl Marx? Or should he be one of those who once were protesting students, but today wear the fanciest Italian suits and go to the parties of the corporate one-percenters?
I read Barroso’s bio on Wikipedia. What’s the matter with this fellow? First “communist”, then “social democrat”….. now part of the conservative caucus of the European Parliament? So, who in the European Parliament is truly committed to the distressed in Spain? How about those masses of complaining voters, not ready to get involved? Or the chaotic mess of European major mass media — even if you squeeze them like a squashed lemon you hardly get out a drop on E.U. issues.
Even if it sucks, again: We neeeeed pan-European political radio. We all got to watch the political scene in Brussels closer. We need much more media reports and control, so people like Barroso cannot feel too comfortably. Reports from Spain, pan-European discussion, call-ins by European fellow citizens of all nations. So I called a few public radio stations which were like, “Why this would be terrrrrible!” Because I am taking on state’s rights, and I mean the states within European nations. Well, as I feel, they should yield a few hours every week, still having enough time for their local blah-blah. Funnily, I discovered Radio Netherlands and Deutsche Welle on Canadian Public Radio, where they report on E.U. politics and it was great! But they don’t feel like airing this in Europe. Nooo, they rather advertise their countries throughout the world. Call it pan-European phlegm. Complaining about Brussels, but not doing their job as European media representatives. Maybe euobserver will start some more projects? You guys seem to have the right spirit and guts. Right now you’re all my hope.
#4 by Joe on December 3, 2012 - 7:01 pm
Whether it’s “progressivism” or not, that Isn’t the issue, the evictions are. This might come as a shock to you, but sometimes your exterminationist political fetish is not the only thing on others’ minds.
Take it with a grain of salt. In large part the evictions have been on 2nd and even 3rd homes. Controlling for non-primary residences, the number is closer to 1000 than to the eye-watering numbers “campaigners” like to use.
Think about what motive a bank would have to evict: none. There is no-one to sell these houses to even if they did get people out. The smart thing is to cut a deal with the residents whereby they either restructure in some way, or stay in the place and pay rent. After all, it’s only “your house” when the mortgage is paid off.
As to wanting “pan-european political radio”, my guess is that you what you want to say is that you want some sort of sanctioned and controlled programming. After all, anyone can put up a station and uplink to a satelite, transmit on the internet, all with the hope that someone will broadcast OTA…
A public not interest in the goings on in Brussels and Strasbourg can certainly not be forced to do so by adding another state broadcaster to their world.
They would need to be viewed as doing somethign relevant – not phony stunts to demonstrate their relevance, but rather something consequencial, like indicating the limitations of their powers, and a committment to protecting local, provincial, and nation-state powers to earn public trust.
But then again, that’s not what I suspect that you really want. I think you miss the “good old days” with nationalistic-cun-pan-nationalistic form of public operant conditioning. Why do you hate people so much?
#5 by Clarissa Smith on December 4, 2012 - 4:45 pm
Joe, your comment is so full of misrepresentations, just read my comment again, or maybe something else you are able to understand…
I am a lefty and not at all about “good old days”, or “nationalism”. I’m entirely opposed to all that nonsense.
As you are defending the banks, it’s YOU who obviously “hate people” — stop projecting. Everybody being involved in making money with money on professional level is not to trust.
I want media to control E.U. politicians and NOT media being controlled by whoever.
You’re messing everything up. Maybe you’re an American Republican? The comment part did make sense so-so, until you came along. And suddenly smells like teabags…