AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 30642/96
by Jadwiga PILATKOWSKA
against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 20 October 1997, the following members being present:
Mr S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs G.H. THUNE
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
MM R. NICOLINI
A. ARABADJIEV
Mr M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 19 September 1995
by Jadwiga PILATKOWSKA against Poland and registered on 26 March 1996
under file No. 30642/96;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government
on 18 February 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by
the applicant on 23 April 1997;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1946, is an economist,
residing in Warsaw.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows:
In 1945 the applicant's father was resettled from Tulicze,
a locality in the territories which had earlier belonged to Poland, to
the territory of Poland within the boundaries traced as a result of the
Second World War.
On 16 May 1991 the Warsaw District Office informed the applicant
that her claim for compensation for her father's property abandoned in
the former eastern territories of Poland had been registered as
required by Article 88 of the 1985 Land Administration and
Expropriation Act.
In a judgment of 8 September 1991 the Warsaw District Court
declared that the applicant had inherited one third of her late
father's estate.
In a judgment of 8 September 1994 the Warsaw District Court
established the composition of the property abandoned by the
applicant's father in Tulicze in 1945.
In an assessment of 25 October 1996 an expert in real estate
declared that the value of the applicant's father's property in Tulicze
of which the applicant had inherited one third pursuant to the 1994
judgment, was equivalent to 1.208.136 zlotys in current prices.
On 27 November 1996 the applicant, together with a group of
persons having a claim to compensation for property abandoned in the
former Polish eastern territiories, participated in a tender for
purchase from the State Treasury of a plot of land located in Legnica,
which had been possessed by the Soviet army before their withdrawal
from Poland. As a result of the tender the applicant and the other
persons acquired property of buildings located on the plot and a right
to use the land for ninety-nine years.
In a decision of 3 February 1997 the Director of Legnica Regional
Office (Kierownik Urz*du Rejonowego) stated that, in accordance with
the Land Administration and Expropriation Act and its by-laws, a sum
of 1.154.771 zlotys, being the value of the property in Tulicze as
estimated by the October 1996 expert report, would be counted towards
the price to be paid by the applicant and two other persons designated
in the judgment of 8 September 1991 for the purchase of 153/1000 of
property located in Legnica whose number in the local land register was
571/1.
By a notarial deed drawn up on 25 February 1997 on the basis of
the administrative decision of 3 February 1997 the purchase by the
applicant and nineteen other persons of the land and buildings located
in Legnica and registered in the local land register under No. 571/1
was established. The applicant thereby acquired the co-ownership of
the buildings and the right to use the land for ninety-nine years. A
sum of 1.154,771 zlotys, being the value of the property abandoned in
the former Eastern territories of Poland of which the applicant had
inherited one third by virtue of the Warsaw's District Court's judgment
of 8 September 1991 was counted towards the price. It covered the price
of co-ownership of the buildings and the payment for the right to use
the land for fifty-seven years.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 81 of the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of
29 April 1985 provides that the persons who abandoned property in the
former eastern territories of Poland due to the Second World War are
entitled to compensation therefor. This compensation is to take the
form of either real property (or a lease for ninety-nine years) of the
same value purchased from the State Treasury or of deduction of the
value of the property owned in the East from the price of the property
(or a lease for ninety-nine years) purchased from the State Treasury.
Article 81 para. 5 of the same Act provides that the compensation
is conditional on the registration of the claim with the local
authority of the State administration not later than 31 December 1992.
Article 5 para. 1 of the Local Administration Act of 10 May 1990
provides that the property of the State possessed by the local State
administration is transferred to the relevant local municipality.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her claim to be compensated for her
father's property abandoned in the former Eastern territories of
Poland, guaranteed under Polish law, cannot be satisfied.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 19 September 1995 and
registered on 26 March 1996.
On 14 October 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
The Government submitted their observations on 18 February 1997.
The applicant replied on 23 April 1997.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that her claim to be compensated for her
father's property abandoned in the former Eastern territories of
Poland, guaranteed under Polish law, cannot be satisfied.
The Commission considers that the case falls to be examined
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which
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."
However, under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the
Commission may only deal with petitions from any person claiming to be
a victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. The
Commission recalls that the answer to the question whether an applicant
can claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention depends
largely on the legal interest which the applicant has in a
determination of his allegations of Convention breaches (No. 9320/81,
Dec. 15.3.84, D.R. 36, p. 24). Someone who has obtained redress at the
domestic level for the alleged violations of the Convention cannot
claim to be a victim of those violations (No. 17926/91, Dec. 28.6.93,
D.R. 75, p. 167).
The Commission notes that in the present case the applicant in
February 1997 purchased from the State Treasury a co-ownership of the
plot located in Legnica registered in the local land register under No.
571/1 and that the entire value of her compensation claim under
Article 81 of the Land Administration and Expropriation Act was counted
towards the price of purchase. The Commission considers therefore that
the applicant's claim to be compensated for the property abandoned in
the former Eastern Polish territories has been fully satisfied and that
she has thereby obtained redress at the domestic level for the alleged
violation of the Convention. Under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the
Convention she can consequently no longer claim to be a victim of this
violation.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance
with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M. de SALVIA S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy