CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 1997

.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. 31491/96                       by Kazimierz SWAT                       against Poland           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              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 16 May 1995 by Kazimierz SWAT against Poland and registered on 15 May 1996 under file No. 31491/96;         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 applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1948, is a farmer, residing in Slupsk.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:         He owns a plot of land in Slupsk, located at the outskirts of the town.         On 30 March 1989 the Slupsk Municipal Office informed the applicant's mother that according to the local master plan a road would be built on the plot No. 29 at Szczecinska Street.         On 4 June 1989 the applicant's mother requested that the plot No. 52, located at Szczecinska Street in Slupsk, of which she was the owner, was reclassified from agricultural to construction plot.         On 4 June 1989 the Slupsk Municipal Office informed the applicant's mother that in order for agricultural property to be used for non-agricultural purposes a permission of the Minister of Agriculture was necessary.   As no such permission had been issued with regard to his plot, it could not be used for any other purposes than agricultural and in particular not for building a house on it.         On 10 December 1990 the applicant's mother donated the plot No. 52 to the applicant and his sister.         On 9 August 1993 the applicant requested the Slupsk Municipal Office to assign him another plot to replace the plot concerned, in view of its function under the local master plan.         On 11 January 1994 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman that he could not use his plot.   Due to its function under the local plan it had lost any commercial value and could de facto not be sold.   The municipality had refused to buy it from the applicant, even though it was uncertain when the construction would begin, and his efforts to obtain another plot in exchange proved fruitless.   He complained that his plot should not serve as a reserve property for the municipality and that his property right had become economically meaningless.         In a letter of 11 March 1994 the Ombudsman office informed the applicant that the general problem of restriction on property rights of persons in a situation identical to that of the applicant had been submitted to the attention of the Minister of Construction on 6 November 1994.   The Ombudsman had drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that such situation amounted to a breach of property rights and proposed that new legislation in this respect be adopted.   This legislation would oblige local authorities either to buy plots concerned or to replace those plots by other plots, within six months from the date on which a relevant request was submitted.   This legislation was being discussed by the Parliament (Sejm), but no decision had yet been taken.         In a letter of 11 April 1994 the Municipal Office, in reply to the applicant's letter of 9 August 1993, informed him that the Municipal Council had approved the local master plan according to which the plot No. 52 remained designed for road construction.   Until the beginning of the works, the plot could be used in the manner in which it had been hitherto used.         On 1 and 10 May 1994 the applicant requested the Slupsk Municipal Office to give him another plot of land to replace his "frozen" plot. He referred to the Ombudsman's letter of 11 March 1994.   He submitted that in view of the fact that his property rights were breached he requested that he be assigned another plot within six months from the date of his letter, as envisaged in the new regulations to be adopted. This letter apparently remained unanswered.         In reply to the applicant's request of 26 March 1997, on 3 April 1997 the Slupsk Municipal Office informed him that under the local master plan his plot remained assigned for road construction.         On 26 March 1997 the applicant requested the Slupsk Municipal Office to grant him compensation.     Relevant domestic law         Under Article 36 of the Law on Local Planning, adopted on 7   July 1994, the local authorities are obliged either to buy plots designed for expropriation under local master plans which are not being realised, or to replace those plots by other plots within six months from the date on which a relevant request was submitted, or to award compensation for the damage caused by fact that the plot is designed for future expropriation.   Under Article 36 of the Act, this obligation applies only to the plans which were adopted before the Act entered into force.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains in substance under Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right to peaceful enjoyment of property is breached by the fact that he cannot use his plot for construction purposes, that it lost any commercial value due to its being designed for road construction under the local master plan and that the municipality does not comply with his request to replace it by another plot.     THE LAW         The applicant complains in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that his right to peaceful enjoyment of property is breached.         However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not the facts submitted by the applicant in support of his complaint disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted".         In the present case the applicant has not shown that any administrative decisions were pronounced as regards compensation claims under Article 36 of the Law on Local Planning, against which the applicant could ultimately lodge an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.         It follows that the application must be rejected for non- exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE         Secretary                                   President    to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber