[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Alicja PROSCINSKA v Poland - 23731/02 [2008] ECHR 1330 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1330.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1330

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 23731/02
by Alicja PROŚCIŃSKA
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, Ms Alicja Prościńska, is a Polish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Siennica Nadolna.

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. 23731/02

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

On 28 June 1995 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant's parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 19 December 1996 the Krasnystaw District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant and her siblings had acquired their late parents' estate and that they were entitled to receive one quarter each.

On 26 October 1999 the Mayor of Lublin (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicant and her siblings had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 535,803.00 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On 17 July 2001 the applicant and her siblings lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 10 November 2001 the Lublin 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, she decided not to pursue the claim.

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 October 2005 the applicant and her siblings applied 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”) to the Governor of Lublin (Wojewoda) for a decision confirming that they had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family. On 7 July 2006 the authorities informed them that they had found certain shortcomings in the documents on the basis of which the certificate of 26 October 1999 had been issued. Accordingly, it was necessary to clarify the relevant issues.

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