In the court case of the State (Openbaar Ministerie) against the VluchtMarkt, lawyer Uppal argued that although since 2010 squatting is a crime, the decision of evictions must be evaluated as proportionate to the interests of the squatters and the ones of the owners. Apart from a few technical exceptions, so far no judge has ruled in favour of the interests of the squatters.
Uppal argued that all people in the houses of Ten Katestraat 61 and 63 are ‘uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers’: they are unable to stay here, because they asylum request got rejected, and cannot be deported to their country. As such they are not allowed to access basic rights, to get housing or work. Their only alternative to squatting is living on the streets or in detention centers, so that it would be disproportionate to evict them.
The Openbaar Ministerie, lawyer Mrs Graafeiland, claimed that the owner, the social housing cooperation Rochdale, wants to renovate, to sell the houses, or rent them out in the free-market. The fact that the squatters are ‘uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers’ is not relevant, because it is in the interest of the state to prevent unlawful squatting.
Lees verder op Indymedia.