Published on 20 December 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 32863/21
Justyna WIŚNIEWSKA
against Poland
lodged on 8 June 2021
communicated on 1 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the impoundment of the applicant’s property ordered pursuant to the 2017 law on extended forfeiture in connection with criminal proceedings on-going against her husband.
On 23 March 2017 an amendment to the Criminal Code (Kodeks Karny) was enacted that allowed courts to order forfeiture of assets that had been acquired by the perpetrators of certain criminal offences up until five years before the given offence had been committed. The measure is commonly referred to as “extended forfeiture” (konfiskata rozszerzona). The amendment came into force on 27 April 2017.
On 22 November 2019 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) impounded the applicant’s house to secure payment of any fines and forfeiture that could possibly be ordered in the criminal case against her husband (zabezpieczenie majątkowe).
On 9 December 2020 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal against the prosecutor’s decision imposing the security.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the unlawful and unjustified control of use of her property. In particular, she claims that the law introducing extended forfeiture was not foreseeable and imposed a disproportionate burden on her.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, was that interference in accordance with the law? Did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Yașar v. Romania, no. 64863/13, 26 November 2019; Lachikhina v. Russia, no. 38783/07, 10 October 2017; Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, 17 May 2016; Hábenczius v. Hungary, no. 44473/06, 21 October 2014; JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, 5 November 2013; Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, 24 July 2012; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108)?