BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
72166/01
by Jan ROMER and Agnieszka
DMOWSKA-BACULEWSKA
against Poland
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 November
2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Lech
Garlicki,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2000,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicants, Mr Jan Romer and Ms Agnieszka
Dmowska Baculewska, are Polish nationals. They are represented
before the Court by Ms M. Nyczka, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) are
represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- The
applicants’ legal predecessors were expropriated, by way of an
administrative decision, in 1944.
- On
8 August 1976 the Warsaw Municipal Office issued decisions which
declared that the land belonging to the applicants’ grandfather
had become State property on the basis of Article 2 (1) (e) of
the Decree on Agrarian Reform of 6 September 1944.
- In
1990 the applicants requested that the property concerned be restored
to them, by way of the decision on expropriation being declared null
and void on the grounds of its unlawfulness.
- In
letters to the applicants, dated 21 January 1992, 27 February
1992, 13 April, 16 July, 29 October and 1 December 1993, the
Ministry of Agriculture stated that the properties concerned did not
fall into the categories of properties to be expropriated under the
1944 Decree and should therefore not have been expropriated. The
Ministry referred to the judgment of the Constitutional Court given
on 19 September 1990. It was further stated that the owners
would be entitled to compensation for damage caused by the
expropriation of the land which
had afterwards been given to third parties and could not, therefore,
be given back to the applicants. The State Treasury, however,
did not have sufficient budgetary means to pay such compensation.
7. In
the Ministry’s letters of 29 October and 1 December 1993
it was reiterated that if the expropriation decisions had been
declared null and void, there would have been no sufficient budgetary
means to pay compensation to the applicants.
8. In
the letters of 21 January and 27 February 1992, 4 April, 1 and
29 December 1993 it was stated that the lack of budgetary
resources hindered a global resolution of cases such as the
applicants’ in which persons whose properties had been
expropriated in the past by the communist authorities claimed that
their properties should be restored to them. The matter should
therefore be left to a future statute on re privatisation of
properties which had been expropriated in the past.
- On
16 June 1999 the Minister of Agriculture again refused to declare the
decision of 8 August 1976 null and void. He observed that after the
entry of the 1997 Constitution into force the interpretative rulings
of the Constitutional Court had ceased to be valid. Hence, the
interpretation of the 1944 Decree developed in the 1990 decision of
that court had also lost its validity. As a result, the 1976 decision
given in the applicant’s case could not be declared null and
void.
- Having
re-examined the case at the applicants’ request, the Minister
upheld this refusal on 4 October 1999.
The
decisions of 16 June and 4 October 1999 were subsequently quashed by
the Supreme Administrative Court on 3 March 2000.
- The
applicants requested the Ministry of Agriculture to re examine
the case. On 22 April 2008 the Minister quashed the decision given in
1976, finding that it was unlawful.
- Subsequently
the applicants lodged a civil claim with the Warsaw Regional Court,
claiming compensation for damage caused by the unlawful expropriation
decisions.
- On
22 October 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the applicant’s
claim and awarded to them compensation in the amount of
PLN 36,000,000.
- The
State Treasury appealed.
- On
16 September 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal reduced compensation
granted to the applicants by PLN 393,699 and upheld the
remainder of the first instance judgment.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the
peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
applicants further complained that the length of the proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement,
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
THE LAW
A. Preliminary observations
- The
Court must first address the issue of Ms Agnieszka Hanna
Dmowska Baculewska’s and Mr Jan Romer’s entitlement
to pursue the application originally introduced by Ms Anna Romer and
Mr Ignacy Dmowski, who died on 23 June 2004 and 12 June
2001 respectively.
- In a letter of 30 January 2002 Ms Dmowska-Baculewska
declared that she wished to pursue her father’s application
before the Court. Mr Jan Romer declared his willingness to
pursue his mother’s application before the Court in his letter
of 30 September 2004.
- The
Court reiterates that in various cases where an applicant died in the
course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of
the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who
expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see,
Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96,
Krempovskij v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 37193/97,
20 April 1999; M.B. v. Poland, (dec.)
no. 34091/96, 8 March 2001; Sildedzis v. Poland,
no. 45214/99, 24 May 2005).
- The
Court considers that both Ms Agnieszka Hanna Dmowska Baculewska
and Mr Jan Romer can claim a legitimate interest in having the
proceedings in the applicants’ case being pursued before the
Court.
B. Decision to strike the case out of the list of cases
22. On
19 September 2011 the applicants’ representative informed the
Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the application since
they were satisfied with the outcome of the domestic proceedings and
with the amount of compensation they had received.
23. The
Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be
regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the
meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine,
the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require
the continued examination of the case.
- In
view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the
list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
