FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13454/09
by Elżbieta RADOSZEWSKA-MLOSEK and Others
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 4 November 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Elżbieta Radoszewska-Mlosek, Mr Andrzej Radoszewski, Mr Stanisław Prądzyński and Ms Maria Szweycer are Polish nationals who were born in 1938 and 1938, 1944 and 1919 respectively and live in Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Nadarzyn, Opacz and Warsaw respectively. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1992 Mr Prądzyński filed an application for annulment of the administrative decisions of 1953. On 24 March 1993 the Minister of Planning and Construction quashed the decisions of 1953. Subsequently, following the complaints of present users of the plots, the relevant decisions were systematically quashed either by administrative court or by relevant administrative organs. The proceedings have been pending before several different organs as the property in question is divided into two plots governed by different administrative entities. Apparently, the proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw City Mayor.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.
The applicants complain also that their property rights were violated because they did not recover the property nationalized in 1953.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 4 November 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
1. In respect of Mr Stanisław Prądzyński:
“The Government’s endeavour to secure a friendly settlement of the matter has remained unsuccessful. The applicant, Mr Stanisław Prądzyński, refused to accept the friendly settlement on terms proposed by the Court. That being the case, the Government, hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case was not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicant PLN 8,000 as just satisfaction for the protracted administrative proceedings, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. ”
2. In respect of Ms Elżbieta Radoszewska-Mlosek:
“The Government’s endeavour to secure a friendly settlement of the matter has remained unsuccessful. The applicant, Ms Elżbieta Radoszewska-Mlosek, refused to accept the friendly settlement on terms proposed by the Court. That being the case, the Government, hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case was not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicant PLN 8,000 as just satisfaction for the protracted administrative proceedings, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. ”
3. In respect of Ms Maria Szweycer:
“The Government’s endeavour to secure a friendly settlement of the matter has remained unsuccessful. The applicant, Ms Maria Szweycer, refused to accept the friendly settlement on terms proposed by the Court. That being the case, the Government, hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case was not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicant PLN 8,000 as just satisfaction for the protracted administrative proceedings, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. ”
4. In respect of Mr Andrzej Radoszewski:
“The Government’s endeavour to secure a friendly settlement of the matter has remained unsuccessful. The applicant, Mr Andrzej Radoszewski, refused to accept the friendly settlement on terms proposed by the Court. That being the case, the Government, hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case was not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay the applicant PLN 8,000 as just satisfaction for the protracted administrative proceedings, which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three‑month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. ”
Consequently, it should be noted that the Government are prepare to pay jointly to all four applicants PLN 32,000 (approximatevely EUR 7,300).
In a letter of 5 December 2010 Ms Radoszewska‑Mlosek and Mr Radoszewski expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. In a letter of 12 December 2010 Ms Maria Szweycer and Mr Stanisław Prądzyński expressed the similar view.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003‑VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69‑98, ECHR 2006‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
The Court further notes that this decision constitutes a final resolution of this application only in so far as the proceedings before the Court are concerned. It is without prejudice to the use by the applicants of other remedies before the domestic courts to claim further compensation in respect of the length of the impugned proceedings.
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
Since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicants of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
B. Complaints under Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the Convention
The applicants further complained that their property rights were violated.
However, the Court considers that this complaint lacks substantiation. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy