[hackerspaces] [Eviction] Call for Support for les Hauts Lieux

[Guyzmo]

Hi,

I've been involved with La Suite Logique hackerspace in Paris which also
hosted by a squat (which will sadly close in a few days). So, I've been 
wondering the same thing as you are.

I'm going to tell you only about the French example that I know well,
but each country has its own rules (ask Kugg, his experience in Sweden
has been another story).

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:42:35AM -0400, Matt Joyce wrote:
> I am curious, I know I've been critical of the "squatting" approach before
> in the past, and still am.  But this is an honest question, just curious.
> At least in the states, when an owner has property that they aren't actively
> maintaining they can be liable for injuries that occur on the property.
> [...]

In France, the same rule apply. If you're away in holidays, a burglar
gets in you home, fall down in your stairs and break his leg. Then he 
can sue you for having an unsafe stairway, as well as you can sue him 
for illegally introducing into your home.

Another example, if you're in your home, take a gun (given you have a
licence to own one, which is not a formality) and shoot the burglar, 
he can sue you for being shot by you. 

> [...] 
> Can they sue the land owner for not meeting building
> codes or meeting safety codes relevant to the activities of the squatting
> hackspace they are ignorant of?

Well, in the situation of a squat things get a little different. First
of all, in Paris, and some other cities, there's a decree made in 1947
(and which has never been revoked, though it has not been used since 50
years) for property requisition that was intended to host families who
have lost their buildings in the empty ones that were empty, the time to
rebuild the city.

And once you're in the place for a few weeks and you can proove it, the
legitimate owners of the building can't expulse you using the force.
They have to sue you for violation of the property right (article 17.2
of the universal declaration) and usually the squatters use the decree
as leverage for their defense.

This does not work all the time, but once you get a trial, the squatters
have won, which means they can have the place for them for a few monthes
to a few years. And once the trial has begun, the people that had their
names on the procedure are liable for the place instead of the
legitimate owner.

Of course, one shall prefer to squat a state-owned abandonned place
instead of a private owned, only because the state have some kind of
responsibility to keep projects going on the places that the tax payer
pay for.

> I know europeans tend not to be the horrendous liability sue happy land that
> the US is, and I love em for it.  But it seems like there would be
> situations in which the land owner is responsible for the activities of
> others on their unwatched property.  Especially if third parties are harmed
> as a result.

Well, that's true we're not much into sueing for anything like americans
do. But, the juridic machine, at least in France, could be the one
described by Kafka in his book "The Trial".

I hope this will enlighten you a bit about the squats. As I see it, a
squat is not a property theft, but a property loan, because in the end,
the legitimate owners always gets his good back, after years neglecting
the place.

Cheers,

-- 
Guyzmo
La Suite Logique
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20100611/004fe3e2/attachment.pgp>