 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Halina PAWLOWSKA v Poland - 38418/03 [2008] ECHR 1281 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1281.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1281 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no.
38418/03
by Halina PAWŁOWSKA
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 15 October 2003,
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, Ms Halina Pawłowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Legnica.
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. 38418/03
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 March 1989 the Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s father had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 24 November 1994 the applicant was granted the right of perpetual use (użytkowanie wieczyste) of a plot in Legnica and acquired a house in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River. It emerges from the material produced by the applicant that the value of the compensatory property was estimated at 73,643,000 and 546,103,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) respectively and the full value of the original property amounted to PLN 1,245,835,000.
On 16 May 1997 the authorities informed the applicant that her claim had been entered in the relevant register as claim no. GG III 7228/714/90. It emerges from the document that her claim had already been partly realised. The value of the compensatory property amounted to 41,592 % of the value of the original property.
It emerges from the valuation report produced by the applicant that the full value of the original property amounted to PLN 347,100 as of 14 August 2002.
The applicant’s subsequent 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).
On 3 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 6 September 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s action.
The applicant did not inform the Court whether she had initiated proceedings under the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State (Ustawa o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego) (“the July 2005 Act”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property.
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
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President