Access to ‘adequate housing’ as understood in international human rights law is an issue confronting many in France: There is insufficient affordable housing supply, including social housing, for those in need. Housing prices and rental costs are on the rise. Homelessness is increasing at a significant pace in some centres – Paris for example saw, according to Government estimates, an 8 percent increase between 2018 and 2019 – and there are too few emergency shelters and longer term housing options for this population. All of this, combined with a Government rollback on subsidies for social housing and jurisdictional disputes between different levels of government regarding responsibility for implementing human rights obligations in the area of housing, is exerting immense pressures on the sector.
The most difficult aspect of this mission were my visits with residents in the places where they live – on streets, and in parks, squats, hotels, informal settlements, and tents situated in the woods and under highways. The people I met were predominantly refugees, asylum seekers, and people of Roma origin, though some were indeed impoverished French citizens, Traveller communities and permanent residents. It was, as it always is, shocking to see such misery, suffering and destitution in as wealthy a country as France.
Many contradictions in France’s housing conditions were revealed to me as the visit unfolded – on the one hand exhibiting strong international human rights compliance with the right to housing and associated rights, while on the other demonstrating a disregard for the same rights.
The justiciable right to housing is guaranteed through the model DALO law, and though France has a large social housing stock it is scarce and often inaccessible for those most in need, which means many low income households must find accommodation in the private market where there is a lack of affordable and decent housing. An impressive and widely known national hotline - “115” - has been created, where people in homelessness or dire housing conditions can call to seek immediate housing assistance, but in Paris, for example, less than a third of the calls are answered. There is a right to unconditional (regardless of administrative status) shelter, but shelters are to capacity. Living standards in France have drastically improved for a majority of the population and the poverty rate has stagnated at 14%; however, extreme poverty is on the rise. The government promotes cultural integration to address diversity and yet there is evidence of spatial segregation based on ethnicity and income level. Many migrants and asylum seekers with whom I spoke explained that they fled to France in part because it is the birthplace of human rights, and yet after arrival in the country they struggle to have their fundamental rights recognized and implemented.
France’s legislative commitment to the justiciable right to housing, the President’s recent public commitment to ending street homelessness, and France’s status as one of the richest countries in the world, are indicators that iy is well positioned to address many of the concerns raised in this statement and fulfill its human rights obligations with respect to the right to housing.
What follows are my preliminary observations on key issues, prominent during the visit. A longer report will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in early 2020.
2. DALO Law and Access to Justice
France has recognized the right to housing in its national legal framework. While there is no explicit article setting out a right to adequate housing in the Constitution of 1946, it does specify in the preamble that all French citizens shall have the right to receive suitable means of existence from society. In 1995, the Constitutional Council defined decent housing for all as an “objective of constitutional value”. In 2007, in response to pressure from civil society, France adopted a law aimed at rendering the right to housing enforceable (Droit au Logement Opposable), known as the DALO law.
France is the only European country to have made the right to housing directly enforceable. The DALO law accords priority in allocation for social housing to certain groups of people in vulnerable housing situations including persons living in homelessness, under threat of eviction, living in temporary emergency accommodation, in dangerous, uninhabitable, unhealthy, indecent or overcrowded units or those who have been waiting to be allocated into a social housing unit for an extensive period of time.
Concerned individuals lodge an application under the DALO law to Commissions of Mediation in each Department who then examine the requests and determine whether they are considered priority cases. According to the law these applicants should be housed or rehoused within six months, and where they are not, they can claim their rights before a court.
In its conception, it is my view that the DALO law creating a justiciable right to housing is of fundamental importance. It is well understood that access to justice is a necessary requirement to ensure human rights are more than just policy objectives or hollow entitlements. The DALO law is intended to ensure that the State and social housing associations respond with priority to individuals whose right to adequate housing has either been violated or is at risk of being violated. And where this is not achieved, for individuals and families to be able to claim their rights. Unfortunately, implementation of the DALO Law is constrained.
Of the 950,000 applicants since the DALO law came into force on 1 January 2008, 270,000 households were identified as priority cases for accessing housing and an impressive 167,200 households were provided with social housing. 62,900 households still require rehousing as of 20 February 2019.
While DALO has been successful in those regions where there is sufficient supply of adequate social housing, its implementation in bigger cities and metropolitan regions, such as the Greater Paris Region, gives rise for concern. For example, from the first applicants in 2008 that submitted a DALO claim in the Greater Paris region more than 10 years ago and were considered a priority case, 9.3 percent have not be successfully rehoused. Moreover, nearly every second priority household identified in 2017 in Greater Paris could not be provided with adequate housing as of February 2019. The High Committee for the Housing of Disadvantaged Persons has pointed out that Commissions of Mediation have tended to interpret the DALO law in an increasingly restrictive manner and highlighted that their decisions have partly be guided by informal criteria that are not in compliance with the law, such as taking into consideration the availability of housing in their respective Department1.
Applicants accorded priority DALO status who are not granted a unit within a reasonable time are entitled to go to court to have their application enforced and many do. In those proceedings local governments are frequently ordered to provide social housing to the applicant and pay a fine that goes into a fund to support organizations providing social support and legal advice to persons living in inadequate housing conditions. In many cases the government will pay the fine but will not accord the applicant a social housing unit. The only recourse open to the applicant from there is to return to court to seek a one-time compensation of between 2,000 and 3,000 EUR. Ultimately, the effect of this is a denial of access to justice, where local governments can effectively buy their way out of the right to housing.
According to the last census conducted by the Government of France, homelessness has increased by 58% from 2001 to 2012 (93,000 to 141,500), with the number of children living in homelessness increasing by 85% in the same period. These figures are expected to increase when the results of the next census are released in 2020. The Colectif Les Morts de La Rue counted that more than one person dies every day as a result of living on the street. This is alarming and the Government of France expressed its serious concern about any person in a situation of homelessness dying in the street.
In the face of this, the Government of France has increased the annual budget devoted to emergency shelters (hebergement d’urgence) from 305 million EUR in 2012 to 820 million EUR in 2017 and also significantly increased investment into housing with social supports (logement adapté). In total more than 2 billion EUR are invested in combatting various forms of homelessness. While I commend the Government of France for recognizing this crisis and its increased efforts to shelter and support persons in situation of homelessness, I am concerned that the main focus of the response – providing more emergency beds, some of them only available 7 months of the year – is temporary in nature, and neither addresses the root causes of homelessness nor ensures durable, adequate housing for this population as required under international human rights law. Efforts to inject additional funds in adapted housing offering security of tenure and tailored social supports corresponding to individual needs would facilitate social inclusion, which might be more effective and human rights compliant in addressing homelessness.
The French shelter system is guided by the principle of unconditional (universal) access to shelter for “any person who is homeless and in a medical, mental health or social emergency.” The point of entry to the shelter system is to call the emergency hotline “115”. Established in 1997, those seeking information regarding services, access to emergency accommodation and day centers, as well as facilities providing health care, food, and showers can call 115, toll free, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As the number of people who find themselves homeless rises, so does the number of calls made to 115. Today, the 115 service is flooded. In Paris in November 2017, only ¼ of the 35,380 requests made for shelter through the 115 were successful in finding accommodation for one or several nights. Similarly, in Toulouse in 2018, only 10% of 115 calls were answered and only 29% of these were successful in finding accommodation for one or several nights.
The demands on the 115 have undermined the unconditionality of the right to shelter creating hierarchies of the disadvantaged. I spoke to women who were fleeing domestic violence, LGBTQ youth who were no longer welcome in their family homes, migrant and refugee families sleeping on pavements, and many others who said they had called for days and even months before having their call answered and who expressed their desperation that while knowing they had an ‘unconditional’ right to shelter they were incapable of securing that right.
The Government of France has almost doubled the number of emergency accommodation spaces in a 5-year period from 75,347 in 2012 to 136,889 in 2017, though an acute shortage persists. While this increase is welcome, I note that it is focused on creating short term spaces in hotels, rather than the stabilisation shelters which tend to be longer term and equipped with social supports. During the winter period, 1 November to 31 March, additional temporary spaces (such as in gymnasiums) are also made available. These temporary shelter facilities are not properly equipped to meet the needs of many households, including families, women and girls and children. At times families are forced to separate in order to be sheltered. Moreover, many of those who find accommodation over the winter months face a return to living on the streets on 1 April. After the end of 2017-2018 winter period, 36% of those who were sheltered in the winter and expelled in the spring, were not provided with any alternative solutions.
For those who do secure accommodation, I echo the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ concern that for over 80% accommodation was provided for just a single night. I am also deeply concerned by the use of hotel rooms as a longer-term solution for those living in homelessness. I visited several families living in these conditions. I met a woman from Guinea in the asylum process living in a hotel room with her infant child. She had experienced gender-based violence in her journey to France. She had been provided a small, damp windowless room, on the ground floor adjacent to common use toilets for patrons of the hotel bar as well as other residents. I also met a young family of five who had been sheltered in two non-adjoining hotel rooms for over a year. The children were not old enough to sleep alone, and therefore the entire family was sleeping in one small room. They had access to shared bathrooms but lacked access to a kitchen or laundry room. In light of the lack of availability of other housing options, hotels have become long-term rather than emergency services as originally intended. As one hotel resident said plainly, “how can a hotel room feel like a home?”
I am pleased to learn that 8 cities including Bordeaux, Dijon, Lyon, and Grenoble, supported and partly financed by central government, are embarking on Housing First programs akin to the “Chez Soi d’Abord” pilot program, which had an 85 housing retention success rate.
4. Informal settlements
Informal settlements are generally created and inhabited by the poorest, most marginalized groups including people of Roma origin from Eastern Europe (amounting to about two-thirds of the informal settlement population), Traveller communities, as well as migrants and refugees predominantly from Africa and Arab states. They create and live in informal settlements because they have no other housing options.
According to the latest Government survey from July 2018 approximately 16,090 persons live in 497 informal settlements in France, with one third located in the Greater Paris region. More than one quarter of the residents in these informal settlements and squats are children2.
I visited such informal settlements in Toulouse and Marseille where I was struck by the appalling conditions. In Marseille, I visited a Roma settlement of 120 people in the 15th Arrondissement where absolutely no services were being provided by the city or the central government – the community is siphoning water from a fire hydrant; and there are no toilets, or showers on site, though health care services are available and children are able to attend the local school.
In Toulouse I visited a former office building being used as a residence by more than 300 migrants and refugees, including women and single parent families. Though the complex has running water and electricity, there are inadequate sanitation facilities with residents having to erect three improvised showers in the building’s outdoor parking lot and sewage problems arising as a result of overuse of toilets. The building has no cooking facilities, and is overcrowded. Several people sleep in the corridors and former office rooms in upper floors house up to 15 people. Mattresses and furniture have been salvaged from garbage dumps and there are bed bug infestations. The city has not intervened to improve the conditions of the residence or to provide them with greater security of tenure on the basis that the building is privately owned.
In both of these cases, contrary to international human rights law, the residents are under threat of evictions and alternative adequate accommodation has so far not been proposed by the State. While successful examples to develop long term housing solutions in consultation and in close collaboration with residents of informal settlements have been reported to me, such as in the town of Strasbourg, the residents in the informal settlements I visited in Toulouse and Marseille indicated to me that they had so far not been meaningfully consulted about their fate. I remind the Government that individuals are experts in their own lives and that participation is a human right. Residents affected must be given the opportunity to participate in decision making processes that affect their lives.
The Government’s overall programme of ‘reabsorption’ to reduce the number of informal settlements is in keeping with its commitments under Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals. According to information received, this programme stresses the need to provide access to the rights to water, sanitation, adequate housing, education and work. My visit to informal settlements, however, tells a different story. It appears that in order to discourage the growth of such settlements a two-pronged approach is adopted: residents are cut-off from what they need to survive including basic services such as potable water, sanitation facilities, garbage services, and electricity and are subjected to repeated forced evictions.
Where a domestic or regional court order has necessitated a different response, the government has responded with the provision of the bare minimum for survival. In Calais, for example, as a result of a decision by the European Commission for Human Rights, provision has been made for access to water, to toilets and food for the approximately 300 migrants and refugees who continue to live there after the clearing of the encampment in 2016. They have not, however, been provided with any semblance of housing, are subject to cyclical and repeated evictions and most do not have easy access to showers, cots to sleep on, or any other comforts.
Policies denying access to core elements of the right to adequate housing are in violation of international human rights law, including the right to water and sanitation, health and to live in security. I remind the Government of France that the intention of the international human rights order is to ensure human dignity.
5. Forced Evictions
A survey by the Colectif National Droits de l’Homme Romeurope indicates that in 2018 171 evictions of informal settlements and squats took place, affecting 9,688 persons. They estimate that approximately 65 percent of all persons living in informal settlements or squats have been evicted during 2018 from their homes, and the majority of these evictions have taken place from areas owned by the State or public institutions3.
I visited a tent encampment in Porte de la Chappelle, Paris that was scheduled for eviction the following day, a squat in Toulouse scheduled for eviction on 15 April 2019, and a Roma informal settlement in Marseille scheduled for eviction in July 2019.
Most evictions of informal settlements are only carried out after judicial eviction orders, thus it appears that national courts do not always adequately take international human rights standards into account.
According to Romeurope, only 12.7 percent of households evicted were provided with temporary accommodation by the State after eviction, usually in rooms in social hotels, which do not necessarily correspond to the needs of the people and families evicted. Only 2.5 percent of all persons evicted from informal settlements were provided with long-term housing solutions with social supports, while classical housing units were reportedly only offered to 18 persons, or 0.2 percent4. 84.5 percent of all persons evicted in 2018 from informal settlements were provided with the option of calling the emergency number 115 to obtain a place in an emergency shelter for one night. It can be estimated that less than 5 percent of all persons affected have been relocated to new long-term housing options in compliance with international human rights standards5.
The only protection that residents of informal settlements enjoy is the moratorium on evictions during the winter period from 1 November to 31 March. However, for example in cases of serious threats to the security or health of the residents living in informal settlements evictions can as well be carried out during the winter period. Local Governments and Prefectures have relied on these legal dispositions, and reportedly during the winter period of 2017-18 over 1,800 persons were evicted from informal settlements.
Under international human rights law evictions are only justifiable after all feasible alternatives to the eviction been explored, after residents have been consulted, and once alternative accommodation in proximity to the existing settlements has been offered or secured. Evictions into homelessness are strictly prohibited under international law and a severe violation of the right to adequate housing and other human rights, such as the right to health and security of the person.
Addressing the status of migrants and refugees in Calais is beyond the scope of my mandate and not the intention of this statement. Though the housing conditions of this population are not necessarily representative of all migrants in France, their housing conditions are dire, particularly their experiences of repeated forced evictions and deserve particular attention..
In Hauts de France and in particular in the areas of Calais and Grande-Synthe an estimated 600 to 700 migrants and refugees are currently living in homelessness in tents and small encampments, in harsh conditions with extremely limited access to emergency shelter. For example, in Calais the only emergency shelter in this city, a gymnasium, was open for just 20 days between 1 November 2018 and 31 March 2019, when night temperatures where expected to be below 2° of Celsius.
Since the spring of 2017 a deliberate and systematic policy has been implemented of regularly evicting persons camping on privately owned grounds and in public places like roads, and under bridges. From 1 January to 31 March 2019 over 200 evictions of encampments were documented by local human rights organisations. These evictions usually take place in the morning with no advance notice provided to residents. Occasionally tear gas has been employed against residents during the evictions. Some witnesses I interviewed told me that they are being evicted every 48 hours. They also reported that they are not permitted to go back to their tents to retrieve them or to collect personal belongings. In fact, tents, sleeping bags and personal items are often destroyed or confiscated.
Those evicted from their encampments in Calais are offered no proximate alternative housing solutions. The systematic nature of repeated evictions by police forces is a source of extreme stress, anxiety and sleep deprivation – on a population that is already traumatized. Alternative accommodation in reception centers for migrants and asylum seekers is only available more than 75 km from Calais. The National Human Rights Defender (Defenseur des Droits) and the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights (CNCDH) as well as several international human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about these evictions and the living conditions of residents of the informal settlements in and around Calais.
On 28 February 2019 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in
Kahn v. France (no. 12267) that the failure to provide care for an unaccompanied minor after the dismantling of the makeshift camps set up in the southern section of the “lande de Calais" was in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court ruled that failure to provide care had been already extremely problematic before the southern section of the camp had been dismantled and become even worse after the operation due of the demolition of his hut in which he had been living.
The practices reported to me by residents of the encampments around Calais are a gross violation of the right to adequate housing under international human rights law. They also constitute violations of the rights to health, food, and to physical integrity. The systematic and repeated nature of these forced evictions during winter time suggest they also constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of one of the most vulnerable populations in France.
7. Substandard housing
There are an estimated 2 million residents in France living in private or public housing considered to be substandard, failing to meet minimum criteria for habitability and/or exposing residents to health risks6. While overall the average quality of housing units in France is similar to other European countries, in Marseille, 40,000 housing units, are estimated to be insalubrious, and fail to meet standards of decent housing. Under national law, local governments have an obligation to inspect housing to ensure its safety and to protect tenants from being exposed to health risks caused by dilapidated housing. Authorities also have an obligation to ensure that private owners maintain property conditions to standards that comply with international human rights law. I learned that for many years, the City of Marseille did not employ a single individual with the necessary training to undertake such checks, and that even now this responsibility is carried out by insufficient staff.
On 5 November 2018, two buildings collapsed in the Noailles neighbourhood of Marseille killing 8 people and displacing over 100 residents. This incident triggered a wave of emergency evacuations affecting more than 2,400 residents living in over 300 buildings. Five months after the disaster the majority of evacuated households are living in hotel rooms. Of particular note and concern is that local authorities disregarded calls from the residents of Noailles who for many years tried to alert them to the risk of disaster posed by the dilapidated state of their homes.
I also spoke to affected residents who feel that they are being prematurely asked to return to their homes and to recommence paying rent, despite inadequate conditions and ongoing risks.
8. Quartiers Prioritaires de la Politique de la Ville (QPV)
For several years now, the Government has been implementing urban renewal programmes to improve living conditions, access to transportation, work and education in urban areas that are marked by high concentration of poverty, referenced since 2014 as
Quartier Prioritaires de la Politique de la Ville (QPV). According to French authorities, 42.2% of QPV residents live below the poverty line, compared to just 14.3% for the general population. In 2016, the unemployment rate in QPV areas was 25.3%, compared to 9.9% in other urban neighbourhoods. 74% of QPV residents live in low-income social housing, compared to just 16% elsewhere in France. These units are more likely to be overpopulated, with over 20% of QPV residents facing either moderate or acute overpopulation in their household (compared to just 12.5% elsewhere in France). The units located in QPV are also smaller than those located in the other districts tending toward overcrowding. QPV residents are also significantly more likely to live in a home with one or more serious defects, such as faulty wiring or a crumbling exterior.
QPV neighbourhoods within large cities tend to have higher rates of employment and less economic disadvantage than those found on the outskirts of the city7. QPV residents are less likely to have access to a car and as a result are more reliant on public transport than residents living in the inner city. Many suburbs, however, have been for many years notoriously underserved by the public transport system.
In Clichy-Sous-Bois, where many residents are living in deplorable housing conditions I was told by residents that they feel isolated from the rest of Paris. Residents complained that, despite being only 10 kilometers from the center, there is no direct transportation to the city and hope that the construction of a tramway will improve their situation. They also noted that in the evening, city buses stray from their assigned route and do not enter the residential communities citing security concerns forcing people to walk to their destinations, including persons with disabilities or those that are elderly. This isolation left them with difficult or long commutes creating serious hardship in finding and maintaining employment and access education. Moreover, individuals with whom I spoke stated that they had faced discrimination when looking for employment based on their address.
I am concerned that the financialization of housing – where housing is promoted and used as a financial instrument rather than as a social good – will quickly evolve in France, particularly since the promulgation of the ELAN law on 23 November 2018. This law incentivizes the selling off of social housing units, setting a target for newly formed social housing conglomerates to sell 40,000 units a year. A turning point for this new policy for social housing came in late 2018 when the state railway company SNCF auctioned off a 4,000 public housing unit portfolio for 1.5 billion EUR to a group of domestic and foreign investment firms.
France has a growing demand for rental housing, a widening gap between demand and supply, and an acute housing shortage for middle- and low-income families. These characteristics make it an attractive destination for private equity firms who, after the interest shown in the SNCF portfolio, have turned their eyes to the French housing market.
(i)When a human right is at stake, it is not acceptable to justify State inaction on the basis of disputes regarding which level of government is responsible - national, regional or local level. The government entity that makes first contact with an individual or group of individuals whose human rights are at stake, must ensure the protection of these rights. Any jurisdictional conflicts can and should be resolved after the necessary protections are implemented.
(ii) The implementation of the DALO law needs to be improved to ensure that all applicants identified as priority for accessing social housing or for rehousing can be offered a decent and affordable home close to their current place of residence within six months, irrespectively where they live in the country. The payment of fines must not replace the effective implementation of the right to housing. While it takes significant time and resources to build social housing, it is imperative that this be made a priority and that other schemes be considered to ensure that those who have been on the DALO priority list for a long time are re-housed immediately.
(iii) I urge the government to move away from emergency and temporary measures to address homelessness, and move towards housing solutions that can provide households with long term stability and dignity, in compliance with the right to housing as elaborated in international human rights law.
(iv) Upgrading informal settlements is a requirement of Goal 11 of the SDGs. The Government of France must ensure security of tenure and access to basic services in all informal settlements. Where upgrading is to take place, this must be undertaken in strict compliance with international human rights law, and in consultation with affected communities. I refer the government to my thematic report on this topic and the recommendations included therein (A/73/310/Rev.1).
(v) France must place a moratorium on all forced evictions. Where evictions are carried out, they must be done in strict compliance with international human rights law.
(vi) With respect to forced evictions in Calais, the Government of France must prohibit the repeated and systematic evictions of persons living in tents and informal settlements resulting in inhuman or degrading treatment. Any evictions must strictly comply with the right to adequate housing under international human rights law, which requires offering sufficient and suitable emergency shelter in reasonable proximity to existing housing and long-term housing options.
(vii) The government should continue to provide financial subsidies and support to improve housing conditions in QPV and enhance ongoing efforts to invest in transportation infrastructure to ensure affordable transportation between suburban QPV and city centres.
(viii) I urge the Government of France to protect its existing social housing supply by prohibiting its sale in particular to for-profit entities such as private equity and asset management firms, particularly in areas identified as having a “tense” housing market.
(ix) France should review its National Housing Strategy (2018-2022) to ensure that it is fully based in human rights, as laid out in my report on this issue (A/HRC/37/53).
During her visit the Special Rapporteur met with representatives of the following public institutions:
Ministère de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales
Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères
Ministère de la solidarité et santé
Ministère de l’Intérieur
Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (DIHAL)
Haut Comité pour le logement des personnes défavorisées (HCLPD)
Commission National Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (CNCDH)
Défenseur des droits (DDD)
Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes économiques (INSEE)
Observatoire National de la Politique de la Ville (ONPV)
Observatoire National de la Pauvreté et de l’Exclusion sociale (ONPES)
Observatoire National de la Précarité énergique (ONPE)
Maire de Paris, Ville de Paris
Maire de Clichy-sous-Bois
Mairie de Grande-Synthe
Ville de Toulouse
Sous-Préfecture de Calais
Services Intégrés d’Accueil et d’Orientation (SIAO) in Paris and Toulouse
Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in France (UNHCR)
The Special Rapporteur also met with representatives of over 40 civil society organizations and social service providers in Paris, Clichy sous Bois, Calais, Grande-Synthe, Toulouse and Marseille.
1. Haute Comité pour le Logement des Personnes Défavorisées. L’Effectivité du droit au logement opposable. Mission d’évaluation dans 14 Départements, Décembre 2016., p. 12
2. DIHAL, Etat des Lieux des Bidonvilles en France Métropolitaine au 1er Juillet 2018, p.3
3. Collectif National Droits de L’Homme Romeurope, Note d?’analyse : Expulsions de bidonvilles et squats habités par des personnes orginaires d’Europe de l’Est en France métropolitaine.
5. The Government reported that 5132 residents from informal settlements were provided with “autonomous housing” that over a five year period between 2013 and 2017, see DIHAL, Resorption des Bidonvilles, Bilan 2017, Panorama 2018, p.7.
6. Fondation Abée Pierre – Etat du mal logement 2018