FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 23068/06
by Witold Juliusz CHROBOT and Others
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 30 May 2006,
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 applicants, Mr Witold Chrobot (“the first applicant”), Mr Jan Chrobot (“the second applicant”) and Ms Jadwiga Węgrzynowska (“the third applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1960, 1929 and 1958 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Elbląg. The third applicant lives in Gdynia. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Nowosielski, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.
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. 23068/06
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 November 2001 the applicants obtained a decision issued by the Elbląg Town Office (Urząd Miejski) confirming that they had jointly the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 182,124 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 19 November 2002 the applicants lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. They sought full compensation for the original property. The action was unsuccessful. The courts found that the applicants had failed to prove that they had actually suffered the material damage alleged and that their claim lacked a legal basis.
The applicants’ 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).
The applicants did not inform the Court whether they had initiated proceedings 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”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property.
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
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-29).
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