European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 19045/06
by Teresa LIPIŃSKA 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 13 April 2006,

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, Ms Teresa Lipińska (“the first applicant”), Mr Jerzy Lipiński (“the second applicant”), Mr Jan Lipiński (“the third applicant”), Ms Janina Rojewska (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Tomasz Lipiński (“the fifth applicant”) and Ms Magdalena Lipińska-Wołowicz (“the sixth applicant”), are Polish nationals. The first, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants live in Sopot. The second applicant lives in Gdańsk-Oliwa. The third applicant lives in Kraków. The second applicant was born in 1932. The third applicant was born in 1921. The dates of birth of the remaining applicants are unknown. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Nowosielski, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.

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. 19045/06

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

On 17 December 1998 the Head of the Kraków District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) issued a certificate confirming that the second and third applicants had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 6,077,917 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of March 1997. It emerges from that certificate that the second applicant is entitled to one fifth and the third applicant to two fifths of the sum.

On 28 July 1999 the Mayor of Sopot (Prezydent Miasta) issued a certificate confirming that the fourth applicant had the right to compensation for the Bug River property, valued at PLN 850,000 as of July1999.

On 24 March 2004 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a decision declaring that the first, second, third, fifth and sixth applicants had acquired their late relative’s estate.

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).

Between 2002 and 2005 the applicants initiated several sets of proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury. The actions were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

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