Application No. 25791/94
by Malgorzata KIRCHMAYER
against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1994
by Malgorzata KIRCHMAYER against Poland and registered on
28 November 1994 under file No. 25791/94;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 28 June 1995 to communicate the
application;
- the information submitted in the Government's letters of 18 and
28 December 1995;
- the information submitted in the applicant's letter of
29 December 1995;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1925, is a retired
engineer residing in Kraków.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows:
On 8 February 1990 the applicant and other heirs of former owners
of a gardening firm "Emil Freege" in Kraków requested the Minister of
Agriculture to quash his decisions of 1950 and 1958, which had
nationalised the firm as they had been unlawful.
On 1 October 1991 the applicant complained to the Supreme
Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny) about the
Minister's failure to reply to her request.
In a letter to the applicant of 24 June 1992 the Ministry of
Agriculture admitted that the legal requirements for nationalisation
of the property in question had not been met. A state-owned firm which
had received the property had made significant expenditures and refused
to give it back to the former owners. Moreover, the applicant's request
could not be complied with as there were no financial resources
available in the budget to cover the compensation to which they would
be entitled. It was a general policy to suspend the restitution of
properties which had been unlawfully nationalised until general
legislative changes concerning nationalised property were introduced.
In its judgment of 12 October 1992 the Supreme Administrative
Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision within
fourteen days from the service of the judgment. The Court observed
that the Code of Administrative Procedure obliged the administration
to issue decisions within fourteen days, and in complex cases within
two months. In the present case all applicable time-limits had elapsed.
As these time-limits were not complied with, the applicant
complained to the Prime Minister.
On 1 February 1992 the Minister of Agriculture refused to quash
the decisions of 1950 and 1958. The Minister observed that the firm and
the land belonging thereto had been nationalised by virtue of
provisions which had allowed for nationalisation if it was in the
State's interest. Given the state policy in the 1950's, hostile to
private owners, the firm would certainly have gone bankrupt. Thus it
had been necessary to nationalise it in order to preserve its potential
for the national economy. The Minister concluded that the
nationalisation decisions were lawful.
On 22 December 1993, upon the applicant's appeal, the Supreme
Administrative Court quashed the decision. The Court considered that
the decisions on 1950 and 1958 were contrary to the law as the property
in question did not belong to any category of property which was
subject to nationalisation. In particular, the Minister of Agriculture
had failed to establish whether the property had been subject to
nationalisation as being of an industrial character or as constituting
real property. In sum, the Minister had failed to establish elements
which were essential for taking the contested decision.
On 17 November 1995 the Minister of Agriculture quashed the
nationalisation decisions of 1950 and 1958, these decisions being in
breach of the relevant legal provisions. This made it possible to
restore the ownership of the property concerned to the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
that her right to enjoyment of possessions has been violated by the
failure of the Ministry of Agriculture to comply with the judgment of
the Supreme Administrative Court and to issue the required decision,
quashing the decisions on nationalisation. This decision would
inevitably have to be in her favour as the Court had clearly stated
that those decisions were unlawful.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that
the authorities ignore her complaints about the Minister's failure to
comply with the Court's judgment.
The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention
that the Minister of Agriculture has disregarded the valid court
judgment, thus rendering the judicial redress which she had obtained
devoid of any practical significance.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 1 September 1994 and registered
on 28 November 1994.
On 28 June 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit
their observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints
under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention before
13 October 1995. At the Government's request, this time-limit was
subsequently extended until 22 December 1995.
By letter of 18 December 1995 the Government requested an
extension of the time-limit until 15 January 1996. In the same letter
the Government informed the Commission that on 17 November 1995 the
Minister of Agriculture had quashed the nationalisation decisions of
1950 and 1958. In view of this development the applicant had been
asked whether she wished to maintain her application. The Agent of the
Government further informed the Commission that he had requested the
State Treasury (Agricultural Property Agency) not to file an appeal to
the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of
17 November 1995.
On 22 December 1995 the extension of the time-limit for the
submission of the Government's observations until 15 January 1996 was
granted.
On 28 December 1995 the Government informed the Commission that
the State Treasury (Agricultural Property Agency) had not appealed
against the decision of 17 November 1995. This decision had thus
become final and enforceable.
On 29 December 1995 the applicant informed the Commission that
the decision of 17 November 1995 satisfied her claim for restitution
of the nationalised property. She further declared that she wished to
withdraw her application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that on 17 November 1995 the Minister of
Agriculture had quashed the nationalisation decisions of 1950 and 1958,
these decisions being in breach of the relevant legal provisions. The
Minister's decision made it possible to restore the ownership of the
property concerned to the applicant. In view of this development the
applicant expressed her wish to withdraw her application.
Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the
Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her
application. The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding
respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require
examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with
Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy