FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 4886/08
by Marek TALAGA
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 19 January 2008,
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 Marek Talaga, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Nowosielski, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.
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. 4886/08
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 April 1999 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s family had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
The applicant’s 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).
In the meantime, on 20 January 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. He sought full compensation for the original property. The action was unsuccessful. On 1 February 2006 the claim was dismissed. On 18 January 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first-instance judgment. On 27 July 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with the applicant’s cassation appeal as no issue of general importance was involved. The courts found that the applicant had failed to prove that he had actually suffered the material damage alleged and that his claim lacked a legal basis.
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