[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kazimiera STROZIK v Poland - 11118/02 [2008] ECHR 1307 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1307.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1307

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 11118/02
by Kazimiera STRÓZIK
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 25 February 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, Ms Kazimiera Strózik, is a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lives in Łobzόw.

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. 11118/02

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

On an unspecified date in 1947 the applicant's father acquired from the State compensatory property of an unspecified value.

On 25 January 1991 Mayor of the Wolbrom (Burmistrz Miasta i Gminy) issued a decision refusing to confirm the applicant's entitlement to compensation since, according to the relevant laws in force, the claim had been already satisfied.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), alleging the State's failure to satisfy her claim. On 3 October 1991 the court dismissed the action as unsubstantiated.

From 1986 to 2003 the applicant made numerous unsuccessful requests to various authorities to enable her to recover the remainder of the compensation for the property abandoned beyond the Bug River. The authorities repeatedly informed her that her claim had already been satisfied. 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 an unspecified date in September 2004 the applicant obtained a valuation report stating that the indexed value of the original property was PLN 1,349,200.

According to the relevant provisions of 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”) the amount of compensation is limited to 20 % of the original property's value. In these circumstances, the applicant can at any time institute proceedings under the July 2005 Act in order to recover the remainder of the 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