FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 13743/05
by Beata SKOTNICKA and Others
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 March 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure and to adjourn its consideration of applications deriving from the same systemic problem identified in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96),
Having regard to the decisions to strike the applications Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (no. 50003/99) and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (no. 11208/02) out of the Court's list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Beata Skotnicka (“the first applicant”), Ms Halina Reichel-Ferenc (“the second applicant”), Mr Bohdan Reicher (“the third applicant”), Mr Janusz Ożyński (“the fourth applicant”), Ms Maria Łucyk‑Wieliczko (“the fifth applicant”) and Ms Iwona Błaszczak (“the sixth applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1971, 1947, 1924, 1946, 1954 and 1956 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Gorzanów. The third applicant lives in Wrocław. The fourth applicant lives in Kraków. The fifth applicant lives in Warsaw. The sixth applicant lives in Mielec.
A. Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 2-5).
B. Particular circumstances of case no. 13743/05
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 January 2001 the Mayor of the Mielec District (Starosta) issued a certificate confirming that the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family in the territories beyond the Bug River. It emerges from the certificate that the full value of the Bug River property amounted to 506,052.00 Polish zlotys (PLN) and that the claim had already been partly realised. The remainder of the claim amounted to PLN 455,447. The applicants were entitled to one third of this sum each.
On 25 April 2001 the Mayor of the Mielec District issued a certificate confirming that the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants had the right to compensation for another property abandoned by their family. It emerges from the certificate that the full value of the Bug River property amounted to PLN 9,309,732.00. The third applicant was entitled to three twelfths of the sum. The fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were entitled to one twelfth of the sum.
The applicants' subsequent attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. The only possibility of enforcing the claim was to participate in competitive bids for the sale of State property. However, the State authorities throughout Poland officially acknowledged the acute shortage of State-owned land designated for the realisation of the Bug River claims.
This fact and the fact that at the material time it was the authorities' common practice to desist from organising auctions for Bug River claimants or to openly deny them the opportunity to enforce their entitlement through the statutory bidding procedure was established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski, cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176).
Between 2002 and 2005 the applicants initiated several sets of proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury. The actions were dismissed as unsubstantiated.
On an unspecified date the applicants initiated proceedings under the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State (Ustawa o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego) (“the July 2005 Act”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property. The proceedings are pending.
C. Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 16-17).
COMPLAINT
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, § 18).
THE LAW
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-29).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
2. Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in respect of the Bug River applications in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96).
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy