FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 42867/02
by Zofia MAĆKAŁA-FELIKS
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 22 November 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, Ms Zofia Maćkała-Feliks, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Chrzanów. She was represented before the Court by Mr J. Feliks, a lawyer practising in Chrzanów.
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. 42867/02
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 November 1997 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and her sister had acquired their late father's estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.
On 17 July 1998 the Chrzanów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and her relatives had acquired her late mother's estate and that they were entitled to receive one third each.
On 2 June 2003 the Mayor of Chrzanów (Starosta) issued a decision refusing to confirm the current value of the property abandoned by their family since the parties had not produced the required documents.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury amounting to 1% of the value of the original property. The action was unsuccessful. The claim was rejected for lack of a legal basis.
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).
It emerges from the valuation report produced by the applicant that the full value of the original property amounted to 581,482 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of February 2006.
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