[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Malgorzata BOLEK and Zdzislaw MOZDZEN v Poland - 19329/05 [2008] ECHR 1359 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1359.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1359

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 19329/05
by Małgorzata BOLEK and Zdzisław MOŻDŻEŃ
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure and to adjourn its consideration of applications deriving from the same systemic problem identified in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96),

Having regard to the decisions to strike the applications Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (no. 50003/99) and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (no. 11208/02) out of the Court's list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Małgorzata Bolek (“the first applicant”) and Mr Zdzisław Możdżeń (“the second applicant”), are Polish nationals. Their dates of birth are unknown. They live in Wrocław and Oleśnica respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Nowosielski, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.

A.  Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 2-5).

B. Particular circumstances of case no. 19329/05

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 27 November 1947 the State Repatriation Office – Wrocław Regional Division (Państwowy Urząd Repatryjacyjny) certified that the applicants' father had abandoned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 3 February 1998 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicants had acquired their father estate.

On 6 June 2002 the Mayor of Wrocław (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicants had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their father, valued at 573,100 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On 9 December 2002 the applicants lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. The applicants sought full compensation for the original property. The courts dismissed the applicants' claim.

The applicants' subsequent attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. The only possibility of enforcing the claim was to participate in competitive bids for the sale of State property. However, the State authorities throughout Poland officially acknowledged the acute shortage of State-owned land designated for the realisation of the Bug River claims.

This fact and the fact that at the material time it was the authorities' common practice to desist from organising auctions for Bug River claimants or to openly deny them the opportunity to enforce their entitlement through the statutory bidding procedure was established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski, cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176).

The applicants did not inform the Court whether they had initiated proceedings under the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State (Ustawa o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego) (“the July 2005 Act”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property.

C.  Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 16-17).

COMPLAINT

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, § 18).

THE LAW

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-29).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President