Communicated on 23 January 2018
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 58089/15 and 58795/15
Krzysztof BARTOSZEWSKI against Poland
and Marek STOŁKOWSKI against Poland
lodged on 17 November 2015 and 5 November 2015 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. No. 58089/15
On 4 July 2006 the Central Bureau of Investigation (Centralne Biuro Śledcze) ordered a seizure of the applicant’s 2003 peugot 307 (WML 65FY) as evidence in the criminal proceedings on-going against third parties charged with drug-trafficking offences.
On 4 August 2006 forensic tests revealed traces of heroin in the vehicle in question.
On 20 August 2007 the car was put at the disposal of the trial court.
On 5 October 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court issued a ruling in the related criminal case. On 17 January 2012 that judgment became final and binding.
On 26 March 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the return of the applicant’s car. It observed that the vehicle was no longer needed for the purpose of the criminal proceedings which had been completed and in the course of which it had been established that the car had not been used in the commission of the offences for which the third parties had been tried. On 13 April 2012 this decision became enforceable.
A privately-contracted expert estimated the value of the car to be 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (12,500 euros; (EUR)) on 26 June 2006, and PLN 6,900 (EUR 1,725) on 30 August 2012.
In November 2012 the applicant sued the State Treasury for PLN 43,350 (EUR 10,837), arguing that his car’s seizure was unjustified for such a long time.
On 20 February 2014 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the protracted seizure of the vehicle was not unlawful. The court also observed that the applicant had not filed any motions to have the seizure of his car lifted in the course of the criminal proceedings in question. Moreover, the applicant had failed to establish the value of his alleged pecuniary loss in that he had only submitted estimates produced by a privately-contracted expert and he had not asked the court to obtain such evidence from a court-appointed one.
On 3 June 2015 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The reasoning of this judgment has not been submitted to the Court.
2. No. 58795/15
On 2 or 8 February 2005 the police seized the applicant’s 1998 Peugot XV 1.6 (WM 03840).
On 11 February 2005 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor issued a decision authorising the security imposition on the car in question towards any fines or damages which might be ordered in the criminal case on-going at that time against the applicant.
On 1 March 2005 the Siedlce District Court attached a writ of execution to the prosecutor’s decision above.
On 11 May 2005 the Siedlce District Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that decision.
On 13 March 2005 a court’s bailiff formally seized the car, securing it at a police station parking lot.
A court-appointed expert estimated the car’s value to be PLN 14,100 (EUR 3,525) on the date of its initial seizure.
On 30 December 2005 the Siedlce Regional Court indicted the applicant of robbery and fraud committed in an organised criminal gang.
On 6 May 2009 the Siedlce District Court convicted the applicant as charged (no. IIK 25/06).
On 8 March 2010 the Siedlce Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case (IIKa 436/09).
On 16 September 2010 the Siedlce Regional Court decided that the car be sold and that the money from its sale be deposited with the trial court.
On 17 June 2011 the Siedlce Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and to PLN 6,000 (EUR 1,500) under the head of damages for the victim, and levied on the applicant court fees in the amount of PLN 1,400 (EUR 350).
The car’s auction was scheduled twice on unspecified dates. The car was not sold in the absence of buyers. Since its seizure, the car has remained with the police.
On 13 June 2013 a court-appointed expert valued the car at PLN 1,300 (EUR 325). The drop in the value resulted, in the expert’s opinion, from the car’s immobilisation over the long period of time without protecting it from corrosion, changing of the liquids and charging its battery.
In 2012 the applicant sued the State Treasury for PLN 15,000 for the loss of his seized car.
On 15 October 2013 the Siedlce District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of PLN 2,100 (EUR 525), holding that the car’s deplorable condition was attributable partly to the passage of time and partly, to the failure of the authorities responsible for its storing to ensure its adequate maintenance. The award represented the difference between the market value of a similar up-kept car and the vehicle in question.
On 25 March 2014 the Siedlce Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the observing, inter alia, that the first-instance court should have examined whether the seizure of the car over the years was justified or whether its sale should have rather been ordered earlier. The appellate court also noted that the trial court’s conclusion that the car’s value had partly been caused by its negligent maintenance was not in line with the findings of the expert.
On 16 February 2015 the Siedlce District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The court held that the applicant had failed to prove that the harm had been caused by a flagrant and doubtless breach of law by the prosecutor and district court which were in charge of the car’s seizure. The court observed that the car’s value would have deflated over time irrespective of the vehicle’s seizure and that the car had been stored with adequate diligence. In view of the applicant’s difficult financial situation, the court decided to waive court fees.
On 11 June 2015 the Siedlce Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, adhering to the first-instance court’s findings of fact and law.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice is laid out in the Court’s inadmissibility decision in the case of Grzegorz Adamczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 28551/04, 7 November 2006.
C. Relevant international material
The relevant international material is set out in the Court’s recent judgment of Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, §§ 38-41, 17 May 2016.
COMPLAINT
The applicants essentially complain that the seizure of their cars amounted to an unjustified control of use of their property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In addition, the second applicant complains, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, that the civil court did not obtain a counter-estimate regarding the car’s value from an official expert.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Lachikhina v. Russia, no. 38783/07, 10 October 2017; Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, 17 May 2016; Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16225/08, 17 September 2015; Hábenczius v. Hungary, no. 44473/06, 21 October 2014; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, 5 November 2013; Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, 24 July 2012; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy