[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jadwiga WOJNICZ v Poland - 11767/03 [2008] ECHR 1407 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1407.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1407

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 11767/03
by Jadwiga WOJNICZ
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 31 March 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 Jadwiga Wojnicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1907 and lives in Bydgoszcz.

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. 11767/03

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

On 29 August 2001 the Mayor of Bydgoszcz (Prezydent Miasta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 172,567 Polish zlotys (PLN).

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), alleging the State's failure to satisfy her claim for compensation. On 4 October 2002 the court rejected the claim as the matter did not fall within the competence of the administrative courts.

On 6 June 2003 the applicant acquired State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at PLN 151,000.00. The value of the compensatory property corresponded to some 70% of the value of the original property.

On 30 May 2003 the applicant obtained a document issued by the Central Statistical Office (Główny Urząd Statystyczny) stating that the indexed value of the original property was PLN 222,266.30.

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).

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”), which limited the amount of compensation available to 20 % of the original property's value, the applicant's claim had already been satisfied.

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