2023-06-27 08:54:26
By Le Figaro with AFP
Posted 1 hour ago, Updated 7 minutes ago
Definitively adopted in Parliament, the text provides in particular for tripling the penalties incurred for “illegal occupation”.
The Nupes once again defers to the Constitutional Council. After the final adoption of the “anti-squat” law in Parliament on June 14, the left announced on Monday that it had seized the high court in the hope of censoring a text. This law “aimed at protecting dwellings against unlawful occupation” – led by Renaissance MP Guillaume Kasbarian – notably speeds up legal proceedings in the event of unpaid rent and triples the penalties incurred by illegal occupants, up to 3 years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros.
And “severity access”contrary to the principle of “proportionality of sentences”and to the constitutional objective “right to decent housing”, write deputies of the four groups (LFI, PS, communist, ecologist). Supported by the government, the text provides for a fine of 3750 euros punishing propaganda or in favor of methods encouraging the violation of a home. An essay “so unclear that the offence” that she could “facilitate the deterrence or repression of humanitarian, associative or even political actions”denounce the applicants.
Read also“Anti-squats” law: what squatters and unscrupulous tenants risk
The rights of owners strengthened
The law also systematically provides in lease contracts for a “automatic termination clause” and suppresses “entry into a room for residential use or economic use”. Members on the left believe that this “concept of premises for residential use” East “ambiguous” when confronted with the “concept of domicile”which they believe would lead to unconstitutionality under the intelligibility of the law.
They also believe that the text reinforces “asymmetrically” the right of the owners to the detriment of the “right to privacy” of some occupants. Especially since the law in question also provides that in the case of a squat, the owner is no longer bound by “the obligation to maintain the property“. The liability of the latter would no longer be engaged in the event of damage “resulting from a lack of maintenance”. in case of “damage caused to a third party”the liability would also fall on the occupier.
An exception is provided for in case of accommodation conditions “manifestly incompatible with human dignity”. But the article ignores the “right to decent housing”believe the applicants, who are asking the Council to censor the entire text.
1687856659
#left #seizes #Constitutional #Council