opening the action to a class that would form for the needs of the case;
• Establishing a fund to finance class action discrimination suits.
Discrimination in access to goods and services
The signing of a charter to combat discrimination in access to housing
The results of various studies, surveys and discrimination testing operations on access to private rented housing carried out over the last few years15 have shown the importance of taking action to bring about an effective and sustainable change in the discriminatory practices and behaviour of professionals in the sector.
Acknowledging this need, on 1 October 2020, the Ministers for Housing and Gender Equality, Diversity and Equal Opportunities, meeting on 1 October 2020, brought together the representatives of the main professional organisations in the real estate sector (FNAIM, UNIS, SNPI) and landlords (UNPI) to sign a charter on the fight against discrimination in access to housing.
Through this charter, the signatories undertake to fight against all forms of discrimination in access to housing, whether related to origin, disability or health condition, age, family situation or sexual orientation.
74
The development of awareness-raising and training tools for all professionals and the distribution of the Defender of Rights' educational guide entitled, Renting without Discrimination are also mentioned in it.
Their deployment is encouraged by the Decree of 14 October 2020, which makes it mandatory to include a module specifically dedicated to non-discrimination in access to housing in the continuing education programmes for estate agents.
The Defender of Rights' office welcomed these actions, which reinforce the work it has carried out in consultation with the main signatory organisations of the charter within the framework of its liaison committee of private housing actors, and the signing of the decree that responds to the recommendations it had made in this regard in 2015.
Observations before the Constitutional Council under the ASAP Act
On 5 February 2020, the government tabled a bill to speed up and simplify public action (ASAP) supplemented by numerous amendments. Among these provisions, some were aimed at modifying Article 38 of Law Act No. 2077-290 of 5 March 2007, known as the "DALO Act", governing the exceptional administrative procedure for rental eviction in order to allow eviction without trial from a squatted home, while others provided for a tightening of the criminal sanctions applicable in this area.
On 2 November 2020, 78 deputies referred the entire bill to the Constitutional Council.
Believing that these provisions were contrary to several fundamental rights and likely to violate certain constitutional principles, the Defender of Rights decided to refer the matter to herself ex officio with a view to submitting observations before the
Constitutional Council (Decision No. 2020-222 of 9 November 2020).
In a decision of 3 December 2020, the Constitutional Council censured the provisions aimed at tightening the criminal law provisions for cases of home invasion and remaining in another person's home, but did not rule on the provisions aimed at extending the scope of application of the exceptional administrative procedure in matters of rental eviction (DC no. 2020-807, 3 December 2020).
Refusal of accommodation due to the undocumented status of a foreign person A mediation commission refused the appeal sent to it on the grounds that the applicant was in French territory undocumented and/
or declared the application devoid of purpose on the grounds that he was already benefiting from emergency accommodation.
The Defender of Rights recalled that the fact that an applicant is in French territory undocumented cannot, on its own, justify the rejection of his or her application for accommodation when the mediation commission has the possibility to recommend reception in an accommodation structure(Decision No. 2020-001 of
15 January 2020). It also considered that the fact that the applicant was provided with temporary accommodation at the time of his appeal did not prevent him from applying, in the context of the DAHO appeal, for stable accommodation adapted to his family situation.
After re-examining the situation of the persons concerned, the mediation commission maintained its position that the applications submitted were not given priority on the grounds that the initial applicant was already receiving accommodation adapted to his family situation in a social reintegration and accommodation centre (CHRS) and that the second had left the department.
Rigorous application to an affected person Alzheimer's disease of the adage, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
The former Article 2262 of the Civil Code relating to the thirty-year statute of limitations was repealed by Act No. 2008-561 of 17 June 2008 and Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which is now applicable, provides that “personal actions or actions relating to personal property are subject to a limitation period of five years from the day on which the holder of a right has known or should have known the facts enabling him to exercise it”.
Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides, however, that “the limitation period shall not run or shall be suspended against a person who is unable to act as a result of an impediment resulting from the law, the agreement, or force majeure”. Case law has held that a person's state of health and mental disorder may make it absolutely impossible to take action to suspend the limitation period.
This change in the statute of limitations from 30 years to 5 years is at the origin of a number of complaints submitted to the Defender of Rights by persons having subscribed to Treasury bills, securities issued by the State to finance its debt, and having forgotten to request their repayment in time.
The Minister of the Economy and Finance refused to grant the claimants' requests on the grounds that the evidence relating to their health condition was not sufficiently conclusive. In particular, such a refusal was opposed to the claim of the heirs of a deceased person who had not applied for reimbursement within the deadline, suffering from Alzheimer's disease
(Decision No. 2019-206 of 5 September 2019).
The Minister also rejected the claim of a claimant who had subscribed for bonds in a treasury account of which she was a regular client and who was not informed of the change in regulations even though a circular had invited the Treasury to inform the holders under its jurisdiction (Decision 2020-019 of 22 January 2020).
The Minister also refused to review the cases concerned from a fairness standpoint, even though the sums in dispute came from the claimants' savings, which they had lent to the government in good faith.