European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 28950/02
by Kazimierz WASZCZYŃSKI
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 13 July 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 Kazimierz Waszczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Wrocław.

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. 28950/02

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

On 25 June 1989 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his siblings had acquired their late parents' estate.

It emerges from the valuation report produced by the applicant that the full value of the original property amounted to 214,526 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of September 1997.

On unspecified dates the applicant lodged two claims for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury with civil and administrative courts. On 12 July 1999 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the action for lack of a legal basis. On 13 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) rejected the claim as the matter did not fall within the competence of the administrative courts.

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 produce any certificate or decision stating the current value of his claim. Nor did he 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