FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 1557/05
by Bronisław DANISZEWSKI 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 3 December 2004,
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 Bronisław Daniszewski (“the first applicant”), Ms Anna Klara Dek (“the second applicant”) and Mr Stanisław Jerzy Dek (“the third applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1922, 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Białystok. The applicants' families are related. They were represented before the Court by Ms Zofia Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok.
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. 1557/05
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first applicant
On an unspecified date the applicant started to make attempts to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
They 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 15 February 2006 the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicants' family had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 29 March 2007 the Podlasie Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) gave a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family, valued at 80,060 Polish zlotys (PLN).
The applicant 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. The proceedings concerning his entitlement are apparently still pending.
2. The second and third applicants
On 22 February 1946 the State Repatriation Office in Rzeszów (Państwowy Urząd Repatryjacyjny) certified that the applicants' grand‑mother had abandoned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 3 April 1996 the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a declaratory decision stating that the applicants had acquired their grand‑mother's estate.
On an unspecified date the applicants started to make attempts to acquire State property in compensation for the Bug River property.
They 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