A/HRC/43/43/Add.2 rehoused. Larger cities and metropolitan areas are experiencing this shortage more acutely. For example, one in two priority households identified in 2017 in Greater Paris had not been provided with adequate housing as of February 2019. 27. The High-level Committee on Housing of Disadvantaged Persons has expressed concern that mediation commissions, which are charged with the assessment of claims, have tended to interpret the act in an increasingly restrictive manner, accepting fewer claims owing to the lack of available housing in their respective departments rather than on the basis of the applicants’ needs.19 28. Applicants accorded priority status who are not granted a unit within six months are entitled to go to court to have their application enforced. At court, local governments are frequently ordered to provide social housing to the applicant and to pay a fine, which goes into a fund for organizations providing social support to persons living in inadequate housing conditions. In many cases, the local authorities pay the fine but do not assign a housing unit to the applicant. The applicant’s only recourse is to return to court for a one-time compensation of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 euros. Ultimately, the effect is a denial of justice, whereby local governments pay to opt out of respecting the right to housing. 29. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that the Government offers means-tested housing benefits that can be accessed by households renting accommodation, including those in social housing. In total, there are over 6 million beneficiary households. The various schemes are expected to have cost 13 billion euros in 2019. 30. However, housing benefits in the form of rental subsidies for low-income households have been insufficiently adjusted to offset rising housing costs. Between 2000 and 2010, rent paid by beneficiaries increased by 32 per cent, while benefits were adjusted by only 15 per cent. In 2017, 9 out of 10 beneficiaries renting on the private market were paying a monthly rent that was higher than the rent upon which the benefit had been calculated.20 31. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that austerity measures have been imposed that may undermine the enjoyment of the right to housing. In October 2017, the personal housing benefit was cut by 5 euros per month. One year later, social housing associations were obliged to reduce their social rents to compensate for a further cut to housing benefits for persons living in social housing. 21 At the same time, value added tax for the construction and renovation of social housing almost doubled, from 5.5 to 10 per cent. These measures are expected to reduce the annual revenues of social housing associations by 2 billion euros, 22 exacerbating the housing crisis and limiting their ability to provide more social housing. D. Financialization of housing 32. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the “financialization of housing” – whereby housing is promoted and used as a commodity rather than as a social good, undermining the realization of the right to housing (see A/HRC/34/51) – will quickly evolve in France, particularly since the promulgation of the 2018 act reforming housing, planning and digital technology. This act incentivizes the sale of social housing units, with a yearly target of 40,000 units. This policy is well under way; in 2018, the State railway company SNCF auctioned 4,000 public housing units for 1.5 billion euros to a group of domestic and foreign investment firms. While these units will remain classified as social housing, there are real concerns that these private owners will not be adequately regulated by the Government to meet international human rights standards and obligations related to the right to adequate housing. 33. Real estate speculation has had a tremendous impact on housing stock in Paris, where 7.5 per cent of all residential dwellings – 107,000 homes – are vacant. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that, in an attempt to curb speculation, the Paris authorities increased the 19 20 21 22 High-level Committee on Housing of Disadvantaged Persons, L’effectivité du droit au logement opposable (Paris, 2016), p. 12. Fondation Abbé Pierre, L’état du mal-logement, p. 280. Ibid., pp. 278–279. See www.union-habitat.org/actualites/pourquoi-les-organismes-hlm-sont-ils-legitimement-inquiets. 7