[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Bozena GORSKA v Poland - 24896/03 [2008] ECHR 1275 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1275.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1275

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 24896/03
by Bożena GÓRSKA
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 3 June 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 Bożena Górska, is a Polish national who was born in 1923 and lives in Opole. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Kraków.

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. 24896/03

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 13 August 1984 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired the entire estate left by her uncle.

On 7 October 1993 the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s uncle had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 29 May 2001 the Mayor of Opole (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her family. It emerges from the decision that the full value of the abandoned property amounted to 10,460,000.00 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of 1996. The decision stated that the claim had been partly realised. The remainder of the claim amounted to PLN 10,120,600.00.

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 22 August 2006 Opolski Governor declared the decision issued by the Mayor of Opole on 29 May 2001 null and void. He found that the value of the property had been established on the basis of a valuation report which was not valid on the date of the issue of that decision.

The applicant did not inform the Court whether she had initiated new 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