FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 22805/07
by Zbigniew SOROKO
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 28 May 2007,
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 applicant, Mr Zbigniew Soroko, is a Polish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Żagań.
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. 22805/07
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 June 1989 the Żagań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant, his mother and his brother had acquired his late father’s estate and that they were entitled to receive one third each.
On 14 June 1989 the Żagań District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his brother had acquired his late mother’s estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.
On an unspecified date the applicant started to make attempts to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River. However they 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).
On 30 December 2005 the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s father had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 15 November 2006 the Lubuski Governor (Wojewoda) issued a decision confirming that the applicant and his brother had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their father, valued at 263,751 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 16 June 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the Government had credited his bank account with an amount corresponding to 20% of the current value of his family’s Bug River property (mienie zabużańskie). However, he did not withdraw his application lodged with the Court in so far as it concerned the remaining 80% of his claim for compensation.
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