European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 9459/02
by Edward KONWERSKI
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 15 February 2002,

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 Edward Konwerski, is a Polish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Warsaw.

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. 9459/02

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

On 15 December 1997 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant's parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 14 June 1999 the applicant and his brother obtained a certificate issued by the Mayor of the Warsaw District (Starosta) confirming that they had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 317,600 Polish zlotys (PLN).

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 30 September 2005 the applicant and his brother lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. The action was unsuccessful. They sought full compensation for the original property and compensation for material damage (loss of profit caused by their inability to enjoy and use the original property during the period of 60 years following repatriation). The claim was rejected for lack of substantiation. The Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) found in its judgment of 21 June 2007, in particular, that material damage caused by the defective operation of the Bug River legislation, could not in reality be higher than, or even equal to, the full value of the original property. On 7 July 2007 the applicant and his brother lodged an 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