AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25481/94 Application No. 26174/95
by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade Union by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade
at the "ZGODA" Cooperative Union at the "FRESCO" Plant
against Poland against Poland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 6 April 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 21 September 1994
by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade Union at the "ZGODA" Cooperative against
Poland and registered on 25 October 1994 under file No. 25481/94; and
the application introduced on 21 September 1994 by the "SOLIDARNOSC"
Trade Union at the "FRESCO" Plant against Poland and registered on
10 January 1995 under file No. 26174/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are two trade unions. They are represented before
the Commission by Mr. Andrzej B*k, a lawyer practising in Lódz.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant trade
unions, may be summarised as follows:
APPLICATION No. 25481/94
The applicant trade union is a branch of the Solidarnosc Trade
Union at the "Zgoda" Cooperative in Zgierz (Komisja Zakladowa NSZZ
"Solidarnosc" przy Powszechnej Spóldzielni Spozywców "Zgoda" w
Zgierzu). It is the successor of a branch of the "Solidarnosc" Trade
Union in the Cooperative, abolished in 1982.
In December 1991 the applicant trade union filed a claim for
restitution of its property with the Restitution Commission (Komisja
Rewindykacyjna) against the State Treasury, an Independent Trade Union
at the Cooperative "Zgoda" (NSZZ Pracowników PSS "Zgoda" w Zgierzu),
and the Board of the Cooperative. The applicant submitted that after
the introduction of martial law on 13 December 1981 its bank account
had been seized. After the abolition of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union
in October 1982, the Treasury had transferred this property to the
Independent Trade Union at the Cooperative.
On 24 November 1992 the Restitution Commission found that the
Independent Trade Union at the Cooperative was liable to pay a sum of
24.742.000 zlotys to the applicant trade union, as calculated in
accordance with the Restitution Act. The Commission dismissed the
claim insofar as it was directed against the Board of the Cooperative
and the State Treasury.
Both the applicant trade union and the Independent Trade Union
filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d
Administracyjny).
On 19 April 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed both
appeals. In respect of the applicant trade union's appeal, the Court
considered that the State Treasury was not responsible for damage
sustained in the applicant's property, as after the introduction of
martial law the State had not acquired the property, but only
temporarily administered this property.
APPLICATION No. 26174/95
The applicant trade union is a branch of the Solidarnosc Trade
Union at the Wool Processing Plant "Fresco" in Zgierz (Komisja
Zakladowa NSZZ "Solidarnosc" przy Zakladach Przemyslu Welnianego
"Fresco" w Zgierzu). It is the successor of a branch of the
"Solidarnosc" Trade Union in the Plant, abolished in 1982.
On 18 June 1991 the applicant trade union filed a claim for
restitution of its property with the Restitution Commission (Komisja
Rewindykacyjna) against the State Treasury, an Independent Trade Union
at the Wool Processing Plant "Fresco" in Zgierz (NSZZ Wlókniarzy
Pracowników ZPW "Fresco" w Zgierzu), and the Board of the Plant.
The applicant submitted that after the introduction of martial law
on13 December 1981 its bank account and cash found at its headquarters,
a sum of 308.090 zloty, had been seized. On 4 February 1983 the money
was transferred to the Independent Trade Union at the Plant. The
applicant claimed compensation for this loss.
In a letter of 17 November 1992 the applicant trade union
submitted that it had been the State Treasury who had introduced
martial law. Thus, the Treasury was responsible for the damage to the
applicant's property jointly with the other defendants, and exclusively
responsible for the damage occasioned in the period from
13 December 1981 to 4 February 1983. Consequently, a higher
compensation should be awarded for this period.
On 18 November 1992 the Restitution Commission found that the
Independent Trade Union was liable to pay a sum of 61.897.000 zlotys
to the applicant, as calculated in accordance with the Restitution Act.
The Commission dismissed the claim insofar as it was directed against
the Directors of the Plant and the State Treasury.
On 16 February 1993 the applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme
Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny).
On 13 May 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the
applicant's appeal. The Court considered that the State Treasury was
not responsible for damage to the applicant's property, as after the
introduction of martial law the State had not acquired the property,
but only temporarily administered this property.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant trade unions complain under Article 1 of the
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities deciding the case
wrongly applied domestic law and awarded insufficient compensation.
THE LAW
1. The Commission finds it necessary to join the applications under
Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.
2. The applicant trade unions complain under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that the authorities deciding the case
wrongly interpreted domestic law and awarded insufficient compensation.
3. The Commission observes that according to the generally
recognised principles of international law, Protocol No. 1 only
governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into
force with respect to that Party. Poland ratified this Protocol on
10 October 1994.
The Commission considers that where an act of expropriation took
place, and where compensation was awarded, before the entry into force
of Protocol No. 1, it has no competence to review the amount of
compensation (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 7742,76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14
p. 146).
In the present case the judgments of the Supreme Administrative
Court, awarding allegedly insufficient compensation, were pronounced
on 19 April 1994 in respect of Application No. 25481/94, and on
13 May 1994 in respect of Application No. 26174/95, i.e. before the
entry into force of Protocol No. 1 with respect to Poland on
10 October 1994.
It follows that the applications are outside the competence
ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
1. DECIDES TO JOIN THE APPLICATIONS,
2. DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy