(Application no. 20982/07)
7 July 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Prądzyńska - Pozdniakow v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land
B. Proceedings conducted before the Warsaw District Office up to July 2002
C. Proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land for the benefit of the “Syrena” company
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
33 The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 60-65 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 17 October 2006 in the case of Grabiński v. Poland (application no. 43702/02).
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT PART OF THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. The parties' submissions
2. The Court's assessment
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
52. The Court has already dealt with this issue in previous cases. In particular it has held that the expression “effective remedy” used in Article 13 cannot be interpreted as a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 33, 16 September 2008).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
B. Costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza