FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 23532/02
by Adam KOGUT
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 June 2002,
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 Adam Kogut, was a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lived in Kielce.
On 14 September 2004 the applicant's wife, Ms Krystyna Kogut, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 5 September 2003 and that pursuant to a decision given by the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on 23 January 2004 she had inherited his estate. She stated that she wished to pursue the application in the late applicant's stead.
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. 23532/02
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 June 1995 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant's parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 19 December 1996 the Krasnystaw District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his siblings had acquired their late parents' estate and that they were entitled to receive one quarter each.
On 26 October 1999 the Mayor of Lublin (Prezydent Miasta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicant and his siblings had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 535,803.00 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 17 July 2001 the applicant and his siblings lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 10 November 2001 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant's request to be exempted from court fees. In view of the amount of the court fees, he decided not to pursue the claim.
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).
On 22 October 2005 the applicant's widow and his siblings applied 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”) to the Governor of Lublin (Wojewoda) for a decision confirming that they had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family. On 7 July 2006 the authorities informed them that they had found certain shortcomings in the documents on the basis of which the certificate of 26 October 1999 had been issued. Accordingly, it was necessary to clarify the relevant issues.
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
A. The standing of the late applicant's wife
The applicant, Mr Adam Kogut, died after he had lodged his application with the Court. His widow confirmed to the Court that she wished to continue the Convention proceedings in his stead. The Court, having regard to its established case-law on the matter, concludes that she has standing to pursue the application in his stead.
B. Application of the pilot-judgment procedure
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-20).
C. Application of Article 37 of the Convention
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 21-24).
D. Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 25-29).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
2. Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in respect of the Bug River applications in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96).
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy