Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121
July 2009
Plechanow v. Poland - 22279/04
Judgment 7.7.2009 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Positive obligations
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
Failure to pay compensation for loss caused by unlawful administrative act on grounds that applicants had sued the wrong authority: violation
Facts: The applicants were the heirs of the owner of residential premises in Warsaw that were transferred to the city under a 1945 decree. They lodged compensation claims against the Warsaw Municipality under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (which afforded a right to compensation for actual damage suffered as a result of certain unlawful administrative decisions) following a ruling by the Local Government Board of Appeal in 1999 that the authorities’ refusal in 1964 to grant the former owner temporary ownership had been unlawful. Their claims were dismissed, however, on the grounds that the proper defendant was the State Treasury, not the Municipality. That decision was upheld on appeal. The question of the proper defendant in such cases was the subject of divergent interpretation by the domestic courts, including the Supreme Administrative Court, both before and after the applicants lodged their claim for compensation.
Law: (a) Compatibility ratione materiae: The Government had argued, inter alia, that the applicants had not proved that they had any “possessions”, as the fact that they were entitled to pursue a claim for compensation under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure did not mean that they had a “legitimate expectation of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right”. The Court observed that in its 1999 ruling the Local Government Board of Appeal had established that the 1964 decision had been issued in breach of law and this fact entitled the applicants to seek compensation for damage. The entitlement was expressly provided for in domestic law and the established case-law confirmed the existence of a causal link between a flawed administrative decision and loss sustained. The applicants thus had a “legitimate expectation” that their claim would be dealt with in accordance with the applicable laws and, consequently, upheld.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(b) Merits: The applicants’ claim had failed because, in reliance on the prevailing case-law, which the courts had later considered to be obsolete, they had sued the wrong defendant. Major administrative reforms in Poland over the previous fifty years had left the courts with the task of determining the authorities responsible for taking over the competencies of now defunct bodies. However, the constantly changing interpretation of the provisions introducing the reforms had led to case-law that was often contradictory, even at the level of the Supreme Court. The question of liability for damages resulting from flawed administrative decisions was by no means clear at the time the applicants’ claim was examined or in the years that followed. While divergences in the case-law were an inherent consequence of any judicial system based on a network of courts, it was the role of a supreme court to resolve such conflicts. In the instant case, however, even the Supreme Court’s case-law on the legal questions in issue was not uniform. Although the problems with which the courts were faced as a result of the reforms was undoubtedly complex, it was nevertheless disproportionate to shift the duty of identifying the competent authority to be sued to the applicants and to deprive them of compensation as a result. In the Court’s view, when a public entity was liable for damages, the State’s positive obligation to facilitate identification of the correct defendant was all the more important. The applicants seemed to have fallen victims of the administrative reforms, the inconsistency of the case-law and a lack of legal certainty and coherence. Accordingly, the State had failed to comply with its positive obligation to provide measures safeguarding the applicants’ right to the effective enjoyment of their possessions and had upset the “fair balance” between the demands of the public interest and the need to protect the applicants’ right.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – Reserved.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy