Global No Border squat in court today

The global no border squat faced court again today, for the third time. This time arguments were heard. The prosecution, on behalf of the Mayor makes claims for rent and damages – with figures pulled out of thin air, and no authorization to sue by the Municipality, who owns the building (empty for several years). Allegations are made against an occupant for damage to the door – without an ounce of evidence.

The defence argues occupants are many, some without papers and some claiming asylum in France. All are forced to live extremely harsh conditions without access to housing and, if evicted, there is no recourse for anyone to be re-homed. All will have to live on the street. They ask for another 2 months according Article 62, of Law 91-650 of 9 July 1991 of the Code of Civil Procedure : (for future squatters out there, its useful to know … )

“If the eviction is on premises used for the principal dwelling of the person being evicted or any occupant’s head, it can not take place without prejudice to the provisions of Articles L.613-1 to L.613-5 Code of Construction and Housing, at the expiration of a period of two months following the command. however, by special reasoned decision, the judge can, especially when the people whose expulsion has ordered entered the premises by assault, reduce or eliminate this delay.

When the expulsion of the person concerned would have consequences of an exceptional hardness, especially because of the period of that year or weather conditions, the period may be extended by the judge for a term not exceeding three months .

From the command having to vacate the premises, the bailiff in charge of the execution of the expulsion order must inform the representative of the State in the Department for consideration of the application for relocation of the occupant within the departmental plan of action for the housing disadvantaged people under the Act n ° 90-449 of 31 May 1990 concerning the implementation of the right to housing.”

And as for the door, the damage was caused by the cops (sound familiar) smashing it in when trying to serve papers from the bailiff to occupants inside (despite the big letter box clearly in the middle of the door). The prosecution had no evidence when, or by who, the damage was caused.

The judge adjourned the decision until 18th July.