CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 avril 1995

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application No. 25481/94            Application No. 26174/95 by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade Union    by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade at the "ZGODA" Cooperative          Union at the "FRESCO" Plant against Poland                      against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 6 April 1995, the following members being present:             Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON                S. TRECHSEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 21 September 1994 by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade Union at the "ZGODA" Cooperative against Poland and registered on 25 October 1994 under file No. 25481/94; and the application introduced on 21 September 1994 by the "SOLIDARNOSC" Trade Union at the "FRESCO" Plant against Poland and registered on 10 January 1995 under file No. 26174/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are two trade unions.   They are represented before the Commission by Mr. Andrzej B*k, a lawyer practising in Lódz.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant trade unions, may be summarised as follows:   APPLICATION No. 25481/94        The applicant trade union is a branch of the Solidarnosc Trade Union at the "Zgoda" Cooperative in Zgierz (Komisja Zakladowa NSZZ "Solidarnosc" przy Powszechnej Spóldzielni Spozywców "Zgoda" w Zgierzu).   It is the successor of a branch of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union in the Cooperative, abolished in 1982.        In December 1991 the applicant trade union filed a claim for restitution of its property with the Restitution Commission (Komisja Rewindykacyjna) against the State Treasury, an Independent Trade Union at the Cooperative "Zgoda" (NSZZ Pracowników PSS "Zgoda" w Zgierzu), and the Board of the Cooperative.   The applicant submitted that after the introduction of martial law on 13 December 1981 its bank account had been seized.   After the abolition of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union in October 1982, the Treasury had transferred this property to the Independent Trade Union at the Cooperative.        On 24 November 1992 the Restitution Commission found that the Independent Trade Union at the Cooperative was liable to pay a sum of 24.742.000 zlotys to the applicant trade union, as calculated in accordance with the Restitution Act.   The Commission dismissed the claim insofar as it was directed against the Board of the Cooperative and the State Treasury.        Both the applicant trade union and the Independent Trade Union filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny).        On 19 April 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed both appeals.   In respect of the applicant trade union's appeal, the Court considered that the State Treasury was not responsible for damage sustained in the applicant's property, as after the introduction of martial law the State had not acquired the property, but only temporarily administered this property.   APPLICATION No. 26174/95        The applicant trade union is a branch of the Solidarnosc Trade Union at the Wool Processing Plant "Fresco" in Zgierz (Komisja Zakladowa NSZZ "Solidarnosc" przy Zakladach Przemyslu Welnianego "Fresco" w Zgierzu).   It is the successor of a branch of the "Solidarnosc" Trade Union in the Plant, abolished in 1982.        On 18 June 1991 the applicant trade union filed a claim for restitution of its property with the Restitution Commission (Komisja Rewindykacyjna) against the State Treasury, an Independent Trade Union at the Wool Processing Plant "Fresco" in Zgierz (NSZZ Wlókniarzy Pracowników ZPW "Fresco" w Zgierzu), and the Board of the Plant. The applicant submitted that after the introduction of martial law on13 December 1981 its bank account and cash found at its headquarters, a sum of 308.090 zloty, had been seized.   On 4 February 1983 the money was transferred to the Independent Trade Union at the Plant.   The applicant claimed compensation for this loss.        In a letter of 17 November 1992 the applicant trade union submitted that it had been the State Treasury who had introduced martial law.   Thus, the Treasury was responsible for the damage to the applicant's property jointly with the other defendants, and exclusively responsible for the damage occasioned in the period from 13 December 1981 to 4 February 1983.   Consequently, a higher compensation should be awarded for this period.        On 18 November 1992 the Restitution Commission found that the Independent Trade Union was liable to pay a sum of 61.897.000 zlotys to the applicant, as calculated in accordance with the Restitution Act. The Commission dismissed the claim insofar as it was directed against the Directors of the Plant and the State Treasury.        On 16 February 1993 the applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny).        On 13 May 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.   The Court considered that the State Treasury was not responsible for damage to the applicant's property, as after the introduction of martial law the State had not acquired the property, but only temporarily administered this property.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant trade unions complain under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the authorities deciding the case wrongly applied domestic law and awarded insufficient compensation.   THE LAW   1.    The Commission finds it necessary to join the applications under Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.   2.    The applicant trade unions complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that the authorities deciding the case wrongly interpreted domestic law and awarded insufficient compensation.   3.    The Commission observes that according to the generally recognised principles of international law, Protocol No. 1 only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with respect to that Party.   Poland ratified this Protocol on 10 October 1994.        The Commission considers that where an act of expropriation took place, and where compensation was awarded, before the entry into force of Protocol No. 1, it has no competence to review the amount of compensation (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 7742,76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 146).         In the present case the judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court, awarding allegedly insufficient compensation, were pronounced on 19 April 1994 in respect of Application No. 25481/94, and on 13 May 1994 in respect of Application No. 26174/95, i.e. before the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 with respect to Poland on 10 October 1994.        It follows that the applications are outside the competence ratione temporis of the Commission and therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        1.    DECIDES TO JOIN THE APPLICATIONS,        2.    DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                         (H. DANELIUS)