European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jan Krzysztof GORALSKI v Poland - 49242/07 [2010] ECHR 1482 (14 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1482.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1482
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
49242/07
by Jan Krzysztof GORALSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Ljiljana Mijović,
President,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jan Krzysztof Goralski, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant's mother co-owned an estate in Stara Wieś (manor house, park and farmland). On 20 February 1945 their property was taken over by the State as part of the agrarian reform. They did not receive any compensation.
On 20 January 2000 the applicant and his sister J.N., successors to their late mother, lodged an application with the Lodz Governor's Office asking for reconsideration of the 1945 decision.
On 21 March 2000 the Governor's Office confirmed that the expropriation in 1945 had been conducted in accordance with the law then in force.
On 23 September 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture upheld this decision.
The applicant appealed, maintaining that part of the property (i.e. the manor house and the park) should not have been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law as it did not constitute arable land.
On 23 September 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case back to the Governor's Office.
On 28 July 2006 the Lodz Governor stayed the proceedings until inheritance proceedings making it possible to identify the heirs of a certain W.K., one of the co-owners of the estate had been terminated. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 9 October 2006 the Lodz Governor informed the applicant that his appeal was being examined by the Ministry of Agriculture.
On 19 December 2006 the applicant complained to the Minister of Agriculture about the delay in the proceedings. On 3 April 2007 he complained to the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court that the Minister was inactive.
On 15 May 2007 the Regional Administrative Court ordered the Ministry of Agriculture to pay a fine of 3,000 Polish zlotys for a delay in the proceedings.
On 15 July 2007 the applicant asked the court to impose another fine on the Minister.
On 27 July 2007 the Minister upheld the decision of 28 July 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court.
On 27 May 2008 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 29 July 2008 the President of the Plock Regional Court informed the applicant that the inheritance proceedings in respect of W.K. were terminated in 1972.
On 24 September 2008 the Minister of Agriculture transferred the applicant's case file, together with a copy of the decision of 1972 listing W.K.'s heirs, to the Lodz Governor's Office.
It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Lodz Governor's Office.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the inactivity of the administrative authorities at the material time are set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Grabiński v. Poland, no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the administrative proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 7 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the fact that the administrative proceedings in the applicant's case were not compatible with a “reasonable time” requirement with the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 14,500, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Ban during the default period plus three percentage points
...”
In a letter of 6 July 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or a part of an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
Since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court's strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the decision on expropriation and its further consequences.
In this respect the Court observes that Poland ratified Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on 10 October 1994. In so far as the applicant could be understood as complaining about official decisions regarding his property rights given prior to that date, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with universally recognised principles of international law, a State can only be held responsible in respect of events after the ratification of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
In so far as the applicant may be understood as complaining about the fact that he did not receive any compensation the Court notes that the relevant administrative proceedings are still pending.
It follows that this complaint is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The applicant also alleged under Articles 3, 5 and 8 that he had been deprived of his family's estate by Poland and Russia.
The Court observes that the Convention entered into force in respect of Poland and Russia on 1 May 1993 and 5 May 1998 respectively.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
Lastly, the applicant complained about alleged discrimination on account of the fact that he was a member of the gentry and he claimed that there were no free elections in Poland.
The Court has examined these complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana Mijović Deputy Registrar President
