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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jan MARCINKIEWICZ v Poland - 23950/02 [2008] ECHR 1331 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1331.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1331 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no.
23950/02
by Jan MARCINKIEWICZ
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 7 June 2002,
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 Jan Marcinkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Bielsko-Biała.
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. 23950/02
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 August 2001 the applicant obtained a certificate issued by the Mayor of Bielsko-Biała (Prezydent Miasta) confirming that he and his siblings had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 1,077,700 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of October 2000.
On 13 December 2001 the applicant and his siblings lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 16 April 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant's request to be exempted from court fees. In view of the amount of the court fees, he decided not to pursue the claim.
Between 2001 and 2003 the applicant submitted numerous requests to the authorities to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River. The authorities informed him that the realisation of the claims depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims.
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).
The applicant did not inform the Court whether he 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