European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF WALDEMAR NOWAKOWSKI v. POLAND

 

(Application no. 55167/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Just satisfaction - Friendly settlement)

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 July 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Ineta Ziemele, President,
          Päivi Hirvelä,
          George Nicolaou,
          Ledi Bianku,
          Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
          Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
          Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 55167/11) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Waldemar Nowakowski (“the applicant”), on 22 August 2011.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2012 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

3.  Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction. He wished to have his collection of arms returned to him. In the alternative, he claimed 300,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for pecuniary damage. He further claimed PLN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the circumstances of the case.

4.  The Court awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage. The Court therefore reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., p. 12, § 62, and point 4 of the operative provisions).

THE LAW

5.  On 22 February and 14 March 2013 the Government and the applicant, respectively, informed the Court that they had agreed that restitutio in integrum of the confiscated collection of old arms would be the best form of just satisfaction for the applicant and that they would take appropriate measures.

6.  On 7 October 2013 the applicant informed the Court that the parties had agreed that the applicant would request the domestic courts to re-open criminal proceedings against him with a view to obtaining a judicial decision on annulment of the confiscation of the collection.

7.  On 27 November 2013 the Government informed the Court that on 26 November 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal had re-opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The Government had submitted to the domestic court their amicus curiae in the applicant’s favour.

8. On 13 February 2014 the Warsaw District Court, having regard to the Court’s principal judgment of 24 July 2012, annulled the decision to confiscate the collection. The court noted that the applicant had fulfilled applicable administrative formalities necessary for running a private museum. In particular, he had obtained a relevant permit of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. It further confirmed the applicant’s ownership of the collection.

9.  On 26 February 2014 the Government informed the Court about that decision and submitted a copy thereof.

10.  On 14 April 2014 the applicant confirmed that the collection had been returned to him.

11.  Having regard to the parties’ agreement and to the terms of the judicial decision of 13 February 2014 which expressly referred to the Court’s principal judgment and confirmed the applicant’s ownership of the previously confiscated collection, the Court finds the agreement equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules of Court. It further finds that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

12.  Consequently, it considers it appropriate to strike the remainder of the case out of the list (Article 37 (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Decides to strike the remainder of the case out of its list of cases.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Françoise Elens-Passos                                                           Ineta Ziemele 
         Registrar                                                                            President

---