26 B. Assessment of the Committee 77. The Committee points out that States must put in place procedures to limit the risk of evictions and to ensure that, when these do take place, they are carried out under conditions which respect the dignity of the persons concerned (Conclusions 2003, Sweden, p. 653). 78. Eviction may be defined as the deprivation of housing which a person occupied, on account of insolvency or wrongful occupation (Conclusions 2003, Sweden, p. 653). Legal protection for persons threatened by eviction must include, in particular, an obligation to consult the affected parties in order to find alternative solutions to eviction and the obligation to fix a reasonable notice period before eviction. The law must also prohibit evictions carried out at night or during winter and provide legal remedies and offer legal aid to those who are in need so they may seek redress from the courts. Compensation for illegal evictions must also be provided. Even when an eviction is justified by the public interest, authorities must adopt measures to re-house or financially assist the persons concerned. 79. The Committee considers that certain elements of the French system on evictions, for example, the two month period after formal notice has been served before eviction can take place, or the suspension of evictions in winter, comply with the guiding principles laid down by it. 80. However, it observes that the French system does not, either in law or in practice, offer the required safeguards, particularly as regards rehousing. Indeed, the Anti-Exclusion Act of 29 July 1998 contains no guarantees that a person subject to eviction will be rehoused. The Committee observes the increasing number of eviction cases, including of persons evicted from homes in substandard conditions, who are not rehoused. Therefore, given the high number of eviction judgments which are issued in France every year, and taking into account the risk of eviction leading to situations of precariousness, the Committee considers that the lack of guarantees ensuring stable and accessible re-housing options before eviction takes place amounts to a breach of Article 31§2. 81. The Committee has in the past noted failures as regards the financial measures to prevent evictions (see Conclusions 2005, France, Article 31§2). In particular, it noted from a report by the High Committee for the housing of disadvantaged persons “that debt clearing plans drawn up by the debt assistance boards (commissions de surendettement) were not always compatible with the requirement that unpaid arrears must be repaid within two years, which was the sine qua non if the judge was to grant a grace period rather than rule that the lease was terminated.” Therefore, again taking into account that the number of tenants subject to eviction judgments is very high the Committee considers that the situation in respect of financial measures designed to prevent eviction is also not in conformity with Article 31§2 of the Revised Charter. 82. The Committee also noted the loose coordination among all actors involved in the prevention procedure: local authorities, the housing solidarity fund (FSL), over-indebtness committee, etc. (see Conclusions 2003, France,