European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 28099/08
by Tomasz KUŹNAR and Ingrid GONDEK
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 23 May 2008,

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, Mr Tomasz Kuźnar and Ms Ingrid Gondek, are Polish nationals who live in Kraków. The applicants’ dates of birth are unknown. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Forystek, a lawyer practising in Kraków.

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. 28099/08

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

On 4 July 2003 the Mayor of Kraków (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicants’ mother had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her family in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 469,283 Polish zlotys (PLN).

The applicants’ mother’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 13 June 2005 and 4 July 2005 the applicants’ mother received compensatory property from the State, valued at PLN 63,770 and PLN 108,600 respectively.

On 26 January 2006 the applicants’ mother lodged a claim for the remainder of the compensation for the property abandoned by her family against the State Treasury. After her death on 11 October 2006, the applicants continued the proceedings in her stead. On 14 November 2006 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) allowed her claim. Upon the defendant’s appeal, on 28 March 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the claim. On 16 May 2008 the Supreme Court found that the amount of compensation payable to the applicants was subject to a statutory ceiling of 20% of the current value of the original 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