European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 27015/04
by Tadeusz KUROCZYCKI
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 7 July 2004,

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 Tadeusz Kuroczycki, is a Polish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Świebodzin.

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. 27015/04

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

On 30 December 1991 the Zielona Góra 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 12 December 2001 the Świebodzin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his sister had acquired their late parents’ estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.

On 22 August 2002 the Lubuski Governor (Wojewoda) refused to issue a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the abandoned property since the applicant had not submitted any official valuation report stating the current value of the original property. According to the applicant’s own estimations, the value of the abandoned property amounted to 995,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of 25 June 2002.

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 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