[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tadeusz CZECHOWSKI v Poland - 4609/03 [2008] ECHR 1446 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1446.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1446

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 4609/03
by Tadeusz CZECHOWSKI
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 27 January 2003,

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 applicant, Mr Tadeusz Czechowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1916 and lives in Sędziszów Małopolski. He was 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. 4609/03

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

On 21 January 1993 the Ropczyce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his mother had acquired his late father's estate.

On 1 September 1993 the Ropczyce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired his late mother's estate.

On 1 February 2000 the Mayor of the Robczyce-Sędziszów District (Starosta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family beyond the Bug River, valued at 208,332 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On 27 May 2003 the applicant acquired a plot of land in compensation for the abandoned property. According to applicant's estimations, the value of the land amounted to 29% of the value of the original property.

The applicant's 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).

On 12 March 2003 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. The action was unsuccessful. The applicant sought full compensation for the original property and compensation for material damage. The final decision in the case was given by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 24 November 2006. The court refused to take cognisance of the merits of the cassation appeal.

The applicant did not inform the Court whether he 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