Information Note on the Court’s case-law 10
September 1999
Rudzińska v. Poland (dec.) - 45223/99
Decision 7.9.1999 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Modification of legislation inherited from the communist regime, resulting in the refusal to grant the applicant a housing subsidy: inadmissible
In 1984, pursuant to an ordinance of 1983, the applicant’s father opened a housing savings account on her behalf. The 1983 ordinance was intended to create a State-supported scheme aimed at co-financing housing in order to improve the chronic housing shortage. As part of the scheme, the State guaranteed that the amounts deposited would be reassessed in due time to ensure that their purchasing power be maintained. This guarantee took the form of a housing subsidy. In 1993, a Council of Minister's Order laid down new requirements, notably that the subsidy would only be granted to those who had bought or built a house or flat. Those not entitled to it could obtain reimbursement of their savings, with interest. In May 1997, the applicant’s bank informed her that she had 5,693 PLZ on her account, which included the housing subsidy should she be entitled to it. She maintained that the sum was not reasonably proportionate to the current price of individual houses and thus did not respect the State’s initial obligations. The bank, however, confirmed that the sums communicated to her, including the subsidy, were correct. The authorities replied to her request for reassessment that her expectations that the housing subsidy would cover the whole difference between her savings and the full cost of a house were not justified.
Inadmissible under Article 1 Protocol No. 1: The change of legislation that occurred in 1993 was meant to take into account the economic transition the country was going through and the excessive burden the housing scheme represented on the State budget. The applicant did not contend that she had complied with the requirement set in the 1993 Order to obtain a housing subsidy. Therefore, she was only entitled, pursuant to the same Order, to the reimbursement of her savings, with interest. Thus, she could not be considered as having been deprived of her possessions nor did the State exercise control over her property. In so far as she complained that her savings had lost their purchasing power due to inflation, there was no general obligation on States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with banks or financial institutions by way of their systematic indexation. As regards her contention that the reduction of guarantees resulting from the 1993 Order prevented her from buying a house, it had to be borne in mind that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not recognise any right to become owner of a property. Finally, according to the Convention organs’ case-law, the provision does not guarantee a right to purchase housing within the framework of the supported housing co-operative scheme of Poland: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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