CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 avril 1996

.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 }                          Application No. 25791/94                       by Malgorzata KIRCHMAYER                       against Poland         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 1 September 1994 by Malgorzata KIRCHMAYER against Poland and registered on 28 November 1994 under file No. 25791/94;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the Commission's decision of 28 June 1995 to communicate the       application;   -      the information submitted in the Government's letters of 18 and       28 December 1995;   -      the information submitted in the applicant's letter of       29 December 1995;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1925, is a retired engineer residing in Kraków.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:         On 8 February 1990 the applicant and other heirs of former owners of a gardening firm "Emil Freege" in Kraków requested the Minister of Agriculture to quash his decisions of 1950 and 1958, which had nationalised the firm as they had been unlawful.         On 1 October 1991 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny S*d Administracyjny) about the Minister's failure to reply to her request.         In a letter to the applicant of 24 June 1992 the Ministry of Agriculture admitted that the legal requirements for nationalisation of the property in question had not been met.   A state-owned firm which had received the property had made significant expenditures and refused to give it back to the former owners. Moreover, the applicant's request could not be complied with as there were no financial resources available in the budget to cover the compensation to which they would be entitled.   It was a general policy to suspend the restitution of properties which had been unlawfully nationalised until general legislative changes concerning nationalised property were introduced.         In its judgment of 12 October 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision within fourteen days from the service of the judgment.   The Court observed that the Code of Administrative Procedure obliged the administration to issue decisions within fourteen days, and in complex cases within two months. In the present case all applicable time-limits had elapsed.         As these time-limits were not complied with, the applicant complained to the Prime Minister.         On 1 February 1992 the Minister of Agriculture refused to quash the decisions of 1950 and 1958. The Minister observed that the firm and the land belonging thereto had been nationalised by virtue of provisions which had allowed for nationalisation if it was in the State's interest. Given the state policy in the 1950's, hostile to private owners, the firm would certainly have gone bankrupt. Thus it had been necessary to nationalise it in order to preserve its potential for the national economy. The Minister concluded that the nationalisation decisions were lawful.         On 22 December 1993, upon the applicant's appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision. The Court considered that the decisions on 1950 and 1958 were contrary to the law as the property in question did not belong to any category of property which was subject to nationalisation. In particular, the Minister of Agriculture had failed to establish whether the property had been subject to nationalisation as being of an industrial character or as constituting real property. In sum, the Minister had failed to establish elements which were essential for taking the contested decision.         On 17 November 1995 the Minister of Agriculture quashed the nationalisation decisions of 1950 and 1958, these decisions being in breach of the relevant legal provisions.   This made it possible to restore the ownership of the property concerned to the applicant.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 that her right to enjoyment of possessions has been violated by the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and to issue the required decision, quashing the decisions on nationalisation. This decision would inevitably have to be in her favour as the Court had clearly stated that those decisions were unlawful.         The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the authorities ignore her complaints about the Minister's failure to comply with the Court's judgment.         The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Minister of Agriculture has disregarded the valid court judgment, thus rendering the judicial redress which she had obtained devoid of any practical significance.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 1 September 1994 and registered on 28 November 1994.         On 28 June 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and invited them to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention before 13 October 1995.   At the Government's request, this time-limit was subsequently extended until 22 December 1995.         By letter of 18 December 1995 the Government requested an extension of the time-limit until 15 January 1996.   In the same letter the Government informed the Commission that on 17 November 1995 the Minister of Agriculture had quashed the nationalisation decisions of 1950 and 1958.   In view of this development the applicant had been asked whether she wished to maintain her application.   The Agent of the Government further informed the Commission that he had requested the State Treasury (Agricultural Property Agency) not to file an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 17 November 1995.         On 22 December 1995 the extension of the time-limit for the submission of the Government's observations until 15 January 1996 was granted.         On 28 December 1995 the Government informed the Commission that the State Treasury (Agricultural Property Agency) had not appealed against the decision of 17 November 1995.   This decision had thus become final and enforceable.         On 29 December 1995 the applicant informed the Commission that the decision of 17 November 1995 satisfied her claim for restitution of the nationalised property.   She further declared that she wished to withdraw her application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that on 17 November 1995 the Minister of Agriculture had quashed the nationalisation decisions of 1950 and 1958, these decisions being in breach of the relevant legal provisions.   The Minister's decision made it possible to restore the ownership of the property concerned to the applicant.   In view of this development the applicant expressed her wish to withdraw her application.         Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application.   The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Second Chamber       President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                       (H. DANELIUS)