FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4830/14
Agnieszka RACZYŃSKA and Barbara PALIŃSKA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, Ms Agnieszka Raczyńska and Ms Barbara Palińska, are Polish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1955 respectively and live in Warsaw. They were represented before the Court by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background
3. In 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) issued the decree on agrarian reform (dekret o reformie rolnej) (“the agrarian decree”) relating to nationalisation of agricultural land (see paragraphs 15-18 below).
4. The applicants’ legal predecessors, L.P and C.P., were the owners of the “Osada fabryczna Józefin” estate (52.45 ha). In addition C.P. was the owner of land situated in Józefów (46.86 ha). On 6 March 1945 the property was taken over by the State Treasury for the purposes of agrarian reform pursuant to section 2 §1 (e) of the agrarian decree. On 24 March 1945 the estate was partitioned. In 1946 the State Treasury was entered in the land register.
2. Proceedings for annulment of the expropriation measure
5. On 24 November 1990 Z.R., the applicants’ mother, applied to the Minister for Trade and Services (Minister Handlu i Usług) for restitution of a mill that had formed part of the Józefin estate.
6. Following a number of administrative decisions and appeals, the proceedings were eventually terminated by a decision of the Łódź Governor (Wojewoda Łódzki) of 9 May 2006. The governor stated that the Józefin estate had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian reform as its surface area had not exceeded the required 100 ha in total and 50 ha of agricultural land.
3. The applicants’ claim for compensation
7. On 15 October 2007 the applicants and a certain M.H. (another heir of the former owners) lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court seeking damages arising from the nationalisation of their legal predecessor’s property. They each sought 632,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 158,000) and the costs of the proceedings. Subsequently, they extended their claim to PLN 799,655.66 (approx. EUR 199,913) for each of them.
8. On 16 June 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court granted the claim. It awarded PLN 799,655.66 to each of the plaintiffs. The court held that under the transitional provisions of section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on amendments to the Civil Code and other statutes (Ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks cywilny oraz niektórych innych ustaw − “the 2004 Amendment Act”), Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“CAP”), applied to “events and legal situations” that subsisted before the entry into force of the 2004 Amendment Act. However, since the applicants’ claim was related to the governor’s decision of 9 May 2006, the relevant provisions of the Civil Code applied to the present case (see paragraph 20 below).
9. The State Treasury, represented by the General Attorney’s office (Prokuratoria Generalna), appealed against this judgment, submitting that the applicants’ claim was time-barred. They should have requested restitution of their legal predecessors’ property already as of 1989, that is after the fall of the communist regime.
10. On 17 July 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the first‑instance judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court held that the damage in the present case had been caused by the distribution of the land in question to individual farmers. Therefore, the law applicable to the present situation was the law in force in 1946. However, since at that time there had been no legal provisions relating to the State’s liability for damage caused by public officials, the relevant law applicable to the applicants’ situation was the Law of 15 November 1956 on the State’s liability for damage caused by public officials (Ustawa o odpowiedzialnosci Skarbu Panstwa za szkody wyrzadzone przez Funkcjonariuszow panstwowych) (“the 1956 Act”).
11. The court noted that the 1956 Act had provided for a one-year time‑limit to lodge any claims for damage which had been caused before the act’s entry into force. On 14 July 2004 the Constitutional Court had found this regulation to be compatible with the Constitution (SK 8/03).
12. With relation to the applicants’ arguments that their mother had, on many occasions, applied for restitution of the property in question, the Court of Appeal noted that these applications had resulted in the Lodz Governor’s decision of 9 May 2006 (see paragraph 6 above). However, the court observed, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment of 1 December 2004 (III CK 50/04), that in order to vindicate compensatory claims it was not necessary to obtain an administrative decision confirming that the nationalisation of agricultural property had been unlawful. Since the applicants’ predecessors had not complied with the time-limit provided by the 1956 Act, the claim in question had become time-barred on 27 November 1957. The court agreed, again quoting the Supreme Court’s case-law, that even if the applicants’ claim could not have been effectively vindicated during the communist regime, as of 1989 the applicants could have brought a civil action for compensation. However, while the applicants’ legal predecessor Z.R. had lodged applications for restitution of property and for declaring that the estate in question had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree, a claim for compensation was lodged only in 2007. The court further noted that Article 160 of the CAP was not applicable to the present case, since the Józefin estate was not expropriated pursuant to an administrative decision.
13. Lastly, in the court’s view, having regard to the fact that a claim for compensation had been lodged nearly eighteen years after the political transition, the defendant’s objection relating to prescription could not be considered as an abuse of right (naduzycie prawa).
14. On 8 August 2013 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicants’ cassation appeal, holding that it did not raise any significant legal issue.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The Decree on agrarian reform
15. On 6 September 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation issued a decree providing for nationalisation of agricultural land.
16. The decree provided that properties of an agricultural nature, owned or co-owned by natural or legal persons, with an area exceeding 100 hectares (ha) in total or 50 ha of agricultural land, would be allocated for agrarian reform (section 2(1)(e)).
17. With regard to properties in the Pomeranian, Poznan or Silesian regions the area was set at 100 ha, regardless of the size of the agricultural property.
18. The decree further prescribed that properties would be transferred to the State Treasury immediately and without any compensation.
2. State’s liability in tort
19. The relevant provisions of the Civil Code relating to the State’s liability in tort are set out in the Court’s decision in the case of Lubelska Fabryka Maszyn i Narzedzi Rolniczych ‘Plon’ and 2 other applications v. Poland ((dec.) 1680/08, §§ 49-53, 3 October 2017).
3. Code of Administrative Procedure and the relevant case-law
20. The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”) relating in particular to situations when a final administrative decision may be annulled, are set out in Lubelska Fabryka Maszyn i Narzedzi Rolniczych ‘Plon’ (cited above §§ 63-66).
21. Examples of the Supreme Court’s case-law concerning compensation claims relating to administrative decisions are described in the judgment of Krasnodębska-Kazikowska and Łuniewska v. Poland (no. 26860/11, §§ 25-27 October 2015).
4. Legislative initiatives concerning restitution and compensation for property taken under the communist regime
22. The description of legislative initiatives aimed at enacting a restitution bill is provided in Lubelska Fabryka (cited above §§ 67-71); Ogórek v. Poland ((dec), no. 28490/03, §§ 53-60, 18 September 2012), and Pikielny v. Poland (dec.) no. 3524/05 §§ 32-39, 18 September 2012).
COMPLAINTS
23. They applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State had failed to enact any restitution or compensation laws providing for restoration of agricultural property nationalised in 1944.
24. The applicants further alleged, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, that as a result of the application of statutory prescription time-limits by the domestic courts they had been denied any compensation for damage arising from expropriation of their legal predecessors’ property.
THE LAW
A. Failure to enact restitution laws
25. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that Poland had failed to enact restitution laws relating to compensation for nationalised agricultural property. This provision of the Convention reads as follows:
“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.”
26. The Court has already held on many occasions that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention cannot be interpreted as imposing any general obligation on the Contracting States to return property which was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. Nor does this provision impose any restrictions on the Contracting States’ freedom to determine the scope of property restitution or rehabilitation laws. The Convention imposes no specific obligation on them to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to their ratification of the Convention (see Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916/01 and 2 others, § 77, ECHR 2005‑V)).
27. Accordingly, the Polish State has no duty under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to enact laws providing for restitution of nationalised property or compensation for property lost by the applicants’ family (see Preussische Treuhand GmbH & CO. Kg A. A. v. Poland (dec.), no. 47550/06, 7 October 2008, §§ 63-64).
28. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
B. Failure to provide compensation
29. The applicants also alleged, relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, that as a result of the application of statutory time-limits by the domestic courts they had been denied compensation for the damage arising from the expropriation in 1944. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention (see, Krasnodębska-Kazikowska, cited above § 55).
30. The Court notes at the outset that the applicants had not alleged that there had been any discrepancies in the case-law of the domestic courts; they only asserted that the manner in which the Court of Appeal had applied the domestic law had been unfair (compare and contrast with Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, §§ 105-107, 7 July 2009).
31. It further reiterates that where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim it may be regarded as an “asset” only where it has a sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no.44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004‑IX). However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No 1 is applicable in the instant case (see Krasnodębska-Kazikowska, cited above §§ 31-33), the Court considers that the present complaint is in any event inadmissible for the reasons specified below.
32. The Court observes that the agrarian decree provided for the nationalisation of agricultural property and forest land. Pursuant to its provisions, the property was expropriated ex lege on the date when the decree had entered into force. Most importantly, the decree did not provide for payment of any compensation for the seized property (see paragraphs 15-18 above).
33. Until the present day the Polish State has not enacted any further pre‑or post-ratification restitution or compensation laws providing for restoration of property expropriated pursuant to the 1944 decrees that might have generated a new property right eligible for protection under Protocol No. 1 (compare and contrast with Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 100, ECHR 2004‑V).
34. In the present case the domestic authorities had confirmed that the property in question had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree (see paragraph 6 above). The applicants’ claim for damages resulting from the unlawful nationalisation was granted in its entirety by the court of first instance (see paragraph 8 above). However, the Warsaw Court of Appeal reversed that judgment and dismissed the claim. The court linked the damage in the present case with the distribution of the land to individual famers. It also took the view that the provisions of the 1956 Act were applicable and concluded that the applicants’ claim was time-barred (see paragraphs 10-12 above). The Supreme Court refused to examine a further cassation appeal as it did not consider that it had raised a significant legal question (see paragraph 14 above).
35. The Court reiterates that, in the context of seeking judicial redress for property-related issues, the existence of a statutory limitation period per se is not incompatible with the Convention or a Protocol thereto. What needs to be ascertained in each given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied is compatible with the Convention requirements (see, Skenderi v. Serbia, no. 15090/08, § 97, 4 July 2017 with further references to the Court’s case-law).
36. In the present case the prescription period was envisaged in the 1956 Act, which regulation was subsequently found to be compatible with the Constitution (see paragraph 11 above). The Court considers that it was therefore lawful. It also pursued a legitimate aim, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality in the area of property disputes.
37. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the domestic courts displayed any arbitrariness in the application of the said time-limit. The Court of Appeal, extensively relying on the case-law of the Supreme Court, confirmed that while, during the communist regime, similar claims could not have been effectively vindicated, there were no obstacles after 4 June 1989 to seek damages for post-war expropriations (see paragraph 12 above). Most importantly, it observed that the applicants’ claim for damages had been lodged only in 2007, that is nearly eighteen years after the political transition (see paragraph 13 above).
38. In the Court’s view, given that the applicants did not complain of any divergences in the case-law of the domestic courts, this interpretation of the domestic law does not appear to have been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. There is no indication either that the applicants were in any way prevented from submitting their evidence or developing legal arguments before the domestic courts.
39. Having regard to the material before it, and its limited power to deal with alleged errors of fact committed by domestic authorities, the Court finds no elements to substitute its view for that expressed by the Polish courts.
40. It follows that the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are manifestly ill-founded and must, as such, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Krasnodębska-Kazikowska, cited above §§ 49-50).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy