FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 21777/07
by Halina PIERARD
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 17 May 2007,
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 Halina Pierard, is a Polish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Lublin.
B. Particular circumstances of case no. 21777/07
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 January 1992 the Trzcianka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and her brother had acquired their late father’s estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.
On an unspecified date the applicant started to make attempts to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned by their late father in the territories beyond the Bug River. However they were unsuccessful.
On May 2004 the applicant obtained a valuation report which estimated the value of the abandoned property at 56,981 Polish zlotys (PLN).
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).
The applicant did not inform the Court whether she 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