FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no.
22961/02
by Halina RUSIECKA
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 4 December 2001,
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, Ms Halina Rusiecka, is a Polish national who was born in 1923 and lives in Sopot.
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. 22961/02
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 December 1976 the applicant acquired State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territory beyond the Bug River. According to the applicant's estimations, the value of the acquired property amounted to 35.5% of the value of the original property.
On 15 December 1999 the applicant obtained a certificate issued by the Mayor of Sopot (Prezydent Miasta) confirming that she had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 55,586.71 Polish zlotys (PLN). The sum corresponded to the difference between the current value of the original property and the value of the compensatory property.
On 27 July 2001 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 5 November 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's request to be exempted from court fees. In view of the amount of the court fees, she decided not to pursue the claim.
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).
The applicant did not inform the Court whether she 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