European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 39006/97
by Ryszard EJSMONT
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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 June 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

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 Ryszard Ejsmont, was a Polish national who was born in 1922 and lived in Ełk.

On 1 March 2007 the applicant’s daughter, Ms Danuta Putynska Sadzikowski, informed the Court’s Registry that the applicant had died on 14 April 2006. She stated that she wished to continue the proceedings before the Court in her late father’s stead.

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. 39006/97

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

On 2 March 1960 and on 14 October 1960 the applicant received compensatory property from the State.

On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant asked the Ełk District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to grant him the remainder of the compensation for the property abandoned by him in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 5 August 1993 the authorities informed him that they did not have at their disposal any property that could be designated for that purpose and that the realisation of his claim depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims.

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

A.  The standing of the late applicant’s daughter

The applicant, Mr Ryszard Ejsmont, died after he had lodged his application with the Court. His daughter confirmed to the Court that she wished to continue the Convention proceedings in his stead. The Court, having regard to its established case-law on the matter, concludes that she has standing to pursue the application in his stead.

B.  Application of the pilot-judgment procedure

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-20).

C.  Application of Article 37 of the Convention

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 21-24).

D.  Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 25-29).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President