European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 24586/03
by Bernard SOKOŁOWSKI and Others
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 24 July 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 applicants, Mr Bernard Sokołowski (“the first applicant”), Mr Ryszard Majewski (“the second applicant”), Ms Zofia Pietrzak (“the third applicant”) and Ms Weronika Dubicka (“the fourth applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1936, 1924, 1926 and 1909 respectively. The first and third applicants live in Jelenia Góra. The second applicant lives in Świerzawa. The fourth applicant lives in Karpniki.

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. 24586/03

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

1.  The first applicant’s attempts to recover compensation

On 13 December 1990 the applicant asked the Jelenia Góra Commune Office (Urząd Miasta) to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River. The authorities informed him that at that time there was no State property that could be designated for the realisation of his claim.

On 10 October 1991 and on 9 January 1992 the Jelenia Góra District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave decisions declaring that the applicant and his relatives had acquired his late parents’ estate.

On 14 September 1992 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 14 February 2001 the Mayor of Jelenia Góra (Prezydent Miasta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicants had the right to compensation for the Bug River property, valued at 868,514.00 Polish zlotys (PLN). It emerges from that document that the applicant is entitled to one fifth of the sum.

2.  The second applicant’s attempts to recover compensation

On 14 May 1991 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 27 November 1992 the Jelenia Góra District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired the entire estate left by his parents.

On 16 July 2003 the Mayor of the Złotoryja District (Starosta) issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family, valued at PLN 380,300 as of April 2003.

3.  The third applicant’s attempts to recover compensation

On 27 March 1991 the Jelenia Góra District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant and her relatives had acquired her late mother’s estate.

On 14 May 1991 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 16 July 2003 the Mayor of Jelenia Góra issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her family, valued at PLN 530,916 as of April 2001. It emerges from that document that the applicant is entitled to one quarter of the sum.

4.  The fourth applicant’s attempts to recover compensation

On 4 December 1992 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 29 October 2002 the Mayor of the Jelenia Góra District issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her, valued at PLN 238,100 as of September 2002.

5.  The applicants’ subsequent attempts to recover compensation

On an unspecified date the first, second and third applicants lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 18 February 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the action as unsubstantiated.

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