Published on 26 May 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 14331/18
Katarzyna Zofia NIELEPIEC
against Poland
lodged on 15 March 2018
communicated on 5 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
In 2013 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Northern Regional Chamber of Urban Planners (Północna Okręgowa Izba Urbanistów, “the Regional Chamber”). She sought the payment of 123,266.89 Polish zlotys (PLN, approximately 29,500 euros (EUR)) plus interest, alleging that the unduly prolonged examination of her application for entry in the register of urban planners had violated the law and had prevented her from pursuing her profession.
On 10 August 2014 the law abolishing the chambers of urban planners entered into force. Under its provisions, all such chambers were to be placed in liquidation.
On 2 February 2015 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded her PLN 20,250 (approximately EUR 4,850) plus interest. In view of the imminent liquidation of the Regional Chamber, the Regional Court ordered that its judgment be immediately enforceable. The applicant appealed only as regards the dismissal of the remainder of her claim. Consequently, the part of the judgment granting the claim in part became final.
On 3 February 2016 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment in so far as it concerned the dismissal of the remainder of the applicant’s claim and discontinued the proceedings. The Court of Appeal held that the Regional Chamber had lost its legal capacity upon the completion of its liquidation on 30 January 2015, and that the applicable legislation had not designated any entity to assume its outstanding obligations.
On 30 May 2017 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. The decision was served on her lawyer on 21 September 2017.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the discontinuation of the proceedings against the Regional Chamber on account of its liquidation deprived her of access to a court.
Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention she complains that she did not obtain compensation to which she was entitled because the Regional Chamber – an entity which formed part of the public administration – was extinguished as a result of a legislative act which did not properly regulate the succession of the liabilities of the abolished chambers.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Chuykina v. Ukraine, no. 28924/04, §§ 49-52, 13 January 2011)? Did the Regional Chamber constitute an “organ, entity or company owned or controlled by the State” (ibid., § 51, see also Nikitina v. Russia, no. 47486/07, § 19, 15 July 2010, and Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 54, 15 October 2009)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with respect to the extinguishing of the part of the claim granted by the final judgment of 2 February 2015 and the dismissal of its remainder? In particular, did the liquidation of the Regional Chamber without legal succession constitute an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions within the meaning of that provision?