BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RATYŃSKA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 12253/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
October 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Ratyńska v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar
Having
deliberated in private on 30 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 12253/03) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Ms Barbara
Ratyńska (“the applicant”), on 3 April 2003.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
17 September 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention, it was decided to rule on the admissibility and
merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
I THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Warszawa.
A. Background of the case
- The
applicant's testators owned a piece of real property in Warsaw. By
virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw
(Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na
obszarze m. st. Warszawy) all land in Warsaw was nationalised.
The applicant's testators filed an application for the grant of a
right of perpetual use of the real property. On 6 July 1972 the
Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej)
refused the application. On 12 February 1973 the competent Minister
upheld that decision. Simultaneously, the applicant's testators
lodged a claim for compensation. On 22 November 1972 the Board of the
Warsaw National Council dismissed the claim as according to the 1957
Law on exclusion of detached houses and apartments in housing
cooperatives' buildings from public management (Ustawa o
wyłączeniu spod publicznej gospodarki lokalami domów
jednorodzinnych oraz lokali w domach spółdzielni
mieszkaniowych), the real property in question was not a detached
house. Consequently, the 1965 Cabinet Resolution allowing for
nationalised detached houses to be compensated was not applicable.
The applicant's testators appealed unsuccessfully against this
decision.
B. Administrative proceedings for compensation
- On
24 February 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings
against the State Treasury for compensation for nationalised family
real property.
- It
appears that on several occasions between 1997 and 2000 the applicant
lodged complaints, alleging inactivity on the part of the
first instance authority.
- On
25 February 2000 the Mayor of Warsaw District informed the applicant
that the administrative proceedings were in their final stage and in
the near future a decision would be issued ordering valuation of the
real property. Consequently, the assessment of the amount of
compensation would then be possible.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity
on the part of the Mayor of the Warsaw District with the Supreme
Administrative Court.
- On
17 November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court admitted that the
proceedings in question had been lengthy and ordered the Mayor to
deal with the case within two months of the judgment being served on
the parties. The court stated that the relevant organ had not only
failed to issue any decision as to the merits during the proceedings
in question but had also failed to justify its delay.
- On
9 February 2001 the Warszawa District Governor discontinued the
relevant proceedings. He stated that the legal regime governing
compensation for the expropriation of detached houses had not changed
since 1957. Therefore, if a valid decision had been taken in 1972, a
re examination of the case between the same parties and about
the same claim was inadmissible. The applicant appealed against this
decision.
- On
18 March 2002 the Mazowiecki Governor dismissed the applicant's
appeal concluding in line with the contested District Governor's
decision.
- On
27 November 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the
applicant's cassation appeal.
C. Administrative proceedings for restoration of the plot of land
- On
21 December 2004 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings
in order to have a plot of land on which the real property was
situated restored to her.
- It
results from the case file that the relevant proceedings are still
pending before the Minister of Infrastructure.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- For
a presentation of the domestic law concerning inactivity on the part
of administrative authorities, see: Kaniewski v. Poland,
no. 38049/02, 8 February 2006, and Koss v. Poland,
no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
FOR COMPENSATION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 24 February 1997 and
ended on 27 November 2003. It thus lasted 6 years and 9 months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Applicability of Article 6 § 1
- The applicability of Article 6 § 1 to
proceedings concerning claims arising against the background of the
Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw of 26 October 1945
has already been determined by the Court (Potocka and Others
v. Poland (dec.), no. 33776/96, 6 April 2000;
Koss v. Poland,
no. 52495/99, § 29, 28 March 2006). The
Government have not contested this in the instant case.
B. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
C. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
The Court observes, in particular, that there was almost a 3-year
period of inactivity in the proceedings before the Mayor of the
Warsaw District between the date the applicant lodged her claim and
the first decision issued in her case. Having regard to its case-law
on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the
length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
COMPENSATION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about
unfairness of the proceedings for compensation.
- The
Court observes that the applicant's family instituted two sets of
proceedings for compensation.
- The
first set of proceedings was terminated in 1972 i.e. before
10 October 1994 when Protocol No. 1 became effective with regard
to Poland. It follows that in this part the applicant's complaint is
incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
- As
to the second set of proceedings for compensation, the Court notes
that it was validly discontinued in 2003 on the basis of the res
iudicata principle. Domestic authorities disallowed the
applicant's claim as the parties, subject matter and the legal regime
governing compensation for expropriation were substantially identical
to the parties, subject matter and the legal regime of the
proceedings validly terminated in 1972.
- The
Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the
Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements
undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In
particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law
allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they
may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention
(see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §
28, ECHR 1999- I).
- In
the present case the applicant did not allege any particular failure
to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant
courts and authorities. Indeed, her complaints are limited to a
challenge to the result of the proceedings. Assessing the
circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court finds no indication
that the impugned proceedings were conducted unfairly and considers
that there is nothing to warrant a departure from the domestic
authorities' findings.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and
4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention that the nationalised real property owned by her family
was not restored to them.
This
provision provides as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
- The
Court notes that the proceedings are still pending (see paragraph 15
above).
It follows that this complaint is premature and must be rejected
under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 570,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage such as distress and frustration on account of
the protracted length of the proceedings, which cannot be
sufficiently compensated by the above finding of a violation. Making
its assessment on an equitable basis the Court awards the applicant
1,800 euros under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings for compensation admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of
the proceedings for compensation;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,800 (one
thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to
be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may
be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
