FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 13715/03
by Tadeusz OLĘDZKI and Lucyna OLĘDZKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged 24 March 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Tadeusz Olędzki, and Mrs Lucyna Olędzka, are Polish nationals who were born in 1923 and 1924 respectively and live in Siemiatycze, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1974 the State Treasury bought from the applicants several plots of land in Siemiatycze. The land was later partly developed and inter alia a bakery was built on it.
On 24 June 1991 the applicants applied for the remainder of their property, which had not been built on according to the relevant development plans, to be returned to them.
On 3 April 1993 the Head of the Siemiatycze District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) decided to return the property in question to the applicants. The applicants and other parties to the proceedings appealed against the decision.
On 10 May 1993 the Białystok Governor (Wojewoda Białostocki) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case.
Between 15 July 1993 and 6 January 1994 the case was stayed.
On 3 February 1994 the Head of the Siemiatycze District Office dismissed the applicants’ application and refused to return the property to them. They appealed against the decision.
On 24 February 1994 the Białystok Governor dismissed the appeal and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants lodged a complaint against the decision with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
On 24 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case.
On 6 May 1996 the Białystok Governor quashed the District Office’s decision of 3 February 1994 and remitted the case.
On 6 September 1996 the Head of the Siemiatycze District Office stayed the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 30 September 1996.
On 25 February 1997 the applicants complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the inactivity of the District Office and asked the court to impose a fine. The Supreme Administrative Court in its decision of 10 July 1997 rejected the complaint finding that the application for the imposition of a fine was inadmissible.
On 18 March 1998 the Head of the Siemiatycze District Office resumed the proceedings. It appears that on 10 June 1998 the applicants applied to the higher authority about the inactivity of the District Office. On 1 July 1998 the Head of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Urząd Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) transferred the case to the Białystok Governor. The applicants received no further information about their complaint.
On 22 September 1998 the Białystok Governor gave a decision in which he refused to return the property.
The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Head of the Office for Housing and Town Development on 6 August 1999. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.
On 28 November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the Bialystok Governor. Following an amendment to the law, the case was transferred to the Mayor of Siemiatycze (Starosta).
On 21 December 2001 the Mayor of Siemiatycze dismissed the application and refused to return the property to the applicants.
The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Podlaski Governor on 28 February 2002. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against that decision.
On 14 August 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both preceding decisions and remitted the case to the Mayor of the District.
On 4 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a fine to be imposed on the Mayor of Siemiatyczne in connection with the prolongation of the proceedings.
On 29 May 2003 the applicants lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 14 November 2003 the court rejected the complaint as it has not been lodged first with the higher authority.
On 5 November 2003 the Mayor of Siemiatycze decided to return the disputed property to the applicants.
However, the other parties to the proceedings appealed and on 24 December 2003 the Podlaski Governor allowed the appeals and quashed the decision. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) on 25 January 2005.
On 13 July 2005 the Mayor of Siemiatycze stayed the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
In addition they complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property has not been returned to them.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that the proceedings in their case were unreasonably long. They invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants further complain of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court observes that the domestic proceedings to determine the applicants’ claim are currently pending. Therefore, in so far as the applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it would be premature to take a position on the substance of this complaint.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning the unreasonable length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy