FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 13024/05
by Halina OLSZEWSKA
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 23 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Halina Olszewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Białystok, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1940 the applicant’s father had been arrested by NKVD and was sent with his family to Kazakhstan. The applicant’s mother died in 1940 and her father died in London in 1967. In 1946 the applicant and her siblings returned to Poland.
On 6 October 1948 the property belonging to the applicant’s parents was taken over by the State.
In 1990 the applicant and her sister were designated jointly as their father’s heirs.
On 26 November 2001 the applicant applied to the Minister of Agriculture to have the 1948 decision annulled and her parents’ property returned to her.
Subsequently, the applicant wrote to the Minister and other authorities complaining that the property had not been returned to her.
On 28 November 2003 she complained to the Minister about his inactivity. As she received no reply to her complaint, on 5 December 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint about the Minister’s inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
Following her complaint, on 5 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court requested the Minister to provide it with the case file within thirty days. However, it appears that the Minister did not comply with this order. However, he started examining the merits of the case and made several requests to various authorities asking them for documents.
On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court informed the applicant that despite its repeated requests the Minister had not complied with the order to provide the case file. The applicant could therefore apply to impose a fine on the Minister.
On 4 June 2004 the Minister gave a decision in which he stayed the proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal in which she asked for the decision to be reconsidered and the proceedings to be resumed.
On 23 June 2004 the applicant followed the Supreme Administrative Court’s advice and applied to have a fine imposed on the Minister.
On 3 August 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the Minister’s inactivity. The court found that since the Minister had stayed the proceedings the inactivity had ceased to exist. In view of that decision, on 17 September 2004 the same court discontinued the proceedings concerning the imposition of the fine.
On 18 November 2005 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision. He annulled the 1948 decision and returned a part of the property to the applicant.
It appears that at least one party to the proceedings, the Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative which has been using the land in question, lodged an appeal against the decision. The proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. In addition she complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her parents’ property had not been returned to her.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the proceedings in her case were unreasonably long. She 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 applicant further complains of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of the 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 applicant’s claims are currently pending upon an appeal lodged by the other party to the proceedings and that it appears that the applicant has not appealed against the decision. Therefore, in so far as the applicant relies 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 (see Szenk v. Poland, no. 67979/01, § 63, 22 March 2005).
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 applicant 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