European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 780/03
by Edward CZESAK
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 18 December 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 Czesak, is a Polish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Bielsko-Biała. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Gałkowski, a lawyer practising in Bielsko- Biała.

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. 780/03

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

1.  The applicant's attempts to recover compensation

On 30 December 1991 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant's father had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 4 August 1992 the applicant's brother renounced his right to compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River in favour of the applicant.

On 7 October 1992 the Bielsko-Biała District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his brother had acquired his late father's estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.

On 30 November 1990 the applicant asked the Bielsko-Biała Town Office (Urząd Miasta) to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 13 December 1990 the authorities informed him that his claim had been entered in the relevant register as claim no. 377 but its realisation depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims.

On 31 January 2002 the Mayor of Bielsko-Biała (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family, valued at 642,300.00 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of October 2001.

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 19 October 2006 the Śląski Governor (Wojewoda) declared the decision issued by the Mayor of Bielsko-Biała on 31 January 2002 null and void. The applicant appealed. On an unspecified date in January 2008 the authorities informed him that there were doubts which organ had competence to deal with the applicant's case. The proceedings are apparently still pending.

2.  The Polish Government's offer to secure the so-called “accelerated payment”

In November 2005, following the friendly settlement concluded in the Broniowski case (see, Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement, [GC], no.31443/06, ECHR 2005-IX) and the entry into force of the Law of 8 July 2005 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”), a delegation of the Government visited the Court's Registry and inspected the case files of all “Bug River” cases. The purpose of the Government's mission was to select a group of applicants in respect of whom, on account of their age, health or difficult personal situation, the Government were prepared to secure an accelerated implementation of their right to compensation as defined by the July 2005 Act. Their initiative was aimed at the implementation of the general measures indicated in the Broniowski merits judgment and of the commitments undertaken in the friendly settlement concluded in the pilot case (see Broniowski, cited above, § 194 and the third and fourth operative provisions of the judgment; and also Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 31).

By a letter of 16 February 2006 the Government supplied the Court with the names of 50 applicants chosen by them for inclusion in the so-called “accelerated payment procedure” on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria. The applicant was included in the list of such persons.

On 14 June 2006 the Government submitted a document setting out their “plan of action” for payment of compensation and explaining to the applicants concerned the requirements and formalities that had to be satisfied by them in order to receive payment, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the July 2005 Act. The Act introduced a ceiling of 20% of the original property's current value on compensation recoverable by Bug River claimants.

On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant accepted the Government's offer. However, he did not withdraw his application lodged with the Court in so far as it concerned the remaining 80% of his claim for compensation.

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