 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Krystyna Maria BARAN-MICHNIEWICZ v Poland - 31812/07 [2008] ECHR 1466 (23 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1466.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1466 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no.
31812/07
by Krystyna Maria BARAN-MICHNIEWICZ
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 19 July 2007,
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 Krystyna Maria Baran-Michniewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław.
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. 31812/07
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 September 2001 the Mayor of Wrocław (Prezydent Miasta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her family in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 417,374.30 Polish zlotys (PLN).
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 9 August 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. She sought full compensation for the original property. The action was unsuccessful. The courts found, in particular, that material damage caused by the defective operation of the Bug River legislation could not in reality be higher than, or even equal to, the full value of the original property.
The applicant 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. The proceedings concerning her entitlement are apparently still pending.
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