FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 2687/03
by Krystyna and Zdzisław MIKOŁAJCZAK
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 16 December 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 applicants, Ms Krystyna Mikołajczak (“the first applicant”), born in 1935 and Mr Zdzisław Mikołajczak (“the second applicant”), born in 1935 are a married couple. They are both Polish nationals living in Poznań.
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. 2687/03
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 June 1946 the State Repatriation Office (Państwowy Urząd Repatriacyjny) in Gdańsk-Sopot issued a certificate attesting that the first applicant's father had owned a piece of real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 28 April 1972 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Powiatowy) gave a decision declaring that the first applicant had acquired her late father's estate.
From 1992 the applicants made numerous unsuccessful requests to the various authorities in Poznań to enable them to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
Their 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 produce any certificate or decision stating the current value of their claim. Nor did they 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