Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67
August-September 2004
Związek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland - 42049/98
Judgment 21.9.2004 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Exclusion of court review of award made by a property commission: violation
Facts: In 1964 the applicant association acquired the use of property which had been taken over by the State Treasury from a religious association. The decision stipulated that, on termination of the use, the applicant association would be entitled to recover outlays incurred in connection with any construction work. In 1992 the local Property Commission, established under the 1989 Law on Relations between the State and the Catholic Church returned the property to the religious association, which it ordered to pau a certain amount in respect of reimbursement of outlays. The applicant challenged the amount but the Property Commission held that it did not have competence to examine further claims. It added, however, that this did not hinder the applicant from making further claims in accordance with the general provisions of the law. The applicant brought an action against the State Treasury, claiming reimbursement of the outstanding outlays, and the Regional Court made a further award. Both parties appealed and the Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court the question whether the 1989 law excluded the possibility of submitting to a civil court claims arising out of a decision of a property commission to return property. The Supreme Court held that a decision by a property commission precluded a civil action against the State Treasury. As a result, the Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s judgment.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The Property Commission was aware that the amount to be awarded was disputed and there were no grounds on which it could have been reasonably assumed that its decision settled the dispute in a manner acceptable to the applicant or that there were no outstanding claims. Indeed, it expressly stated that the applicant’s right to make further claims under the general law was not hindered, so that the applicant was justified in assuming that it could bring a claim against the State Treasury in the civil courts. The Regional Court confirmed this by making an award. The dispute was therefore genuine and serious. The Supreme Court’s finding precluded the applicant from bringing such a claim and it had not been shown that a claim could have been brought against the religious association. Consequently, the applicant was left without any procedural means of vindicating its rights. The Court was not persuaded that the aim of protecting the State against financial claims arising out of past expropriations could justify such a significant limitation. The applicant had incurred considerable expenditure over a number of years and to restrict its access to a court in respect of its claims had to be considered disproportionate. It had been misled as to the possibility of pursuing its claims before a court and it could reasonably be assumed that it would otherwise have argued those claims more vigorously before the Property Commission.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court concluded unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13.
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant association 10,000 euros in respect of damage and also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy