[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Karol GODLEWSKI and Izabella GODLEWSKA v Poland - 13392/06 [2008] ECHR 1447 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1447.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1447

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 13392/06
by Karol GODLEWSKI and Izabella GODLEWSKA
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 29 March 2006,

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 applicants, Mr Karol Godlewski (“the first applicant”) and Ms Izabella Godlewska de Aranda (“the second applicant”), are Polish nationals. The first applicant was born in 1921 and lived in Barry’s Bay, Canada. The second applicant was born in 1931 and lives in London, England.

On 16 September 2008 the Court’s Registry was informed that the first applicant had died on 8 April 2008. His son stated that he wished to continue the proceedings before the Court in his late father’s stead. The applicants and, subsequently, the first applicant’s son, were represented before the Court by Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok.

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. 13392/06

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

On an unspecified date the State Repatriation Office (Państwowy Urząd Repatryjacyjny) certified that the applicants’ parents had abandoned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.

On 17 November 1989 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicants had acquired their late parents’ estate.

The applicants’ 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 applicants did not inform the Court whether they 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

A.  The standing of the late first applicant’s son

The first applicant, Mr Karol Godlewski, died after he had lodged his application with the Court. His son confirmed to the Court that he wished to continue the Convention proceedings in his stead. The Court, having regard to its established case-law on the matter, concludes that he has standing to pursue the application in his stead.

B.  Application of the pilot-judgment procedure

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 19-20).

C.  Application of Article 37 of the Convention

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 21-24).

D.  Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure

(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 25-29).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President