CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 19 octobre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s498DF152 { width:9.33pt; display:inline-block } .s2A75809F { width:2.67pt; display:inline-block } .sEA7DAF3 { width:30.64pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block }           Application No. 38270/97         by Jan KUŁAKOWSKI         against Poland     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1998, the following members being present:       MM   S. TRECHSEL, President       J.-C. GEUS           M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS     Mrs   G.H. THUNE           MM   F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       N. BRATZA       I. BÉKÉS       D. ŠVÁBY       A. PERENIČ       C. BÎRSAN       P. LORENZEN       E. BIELIŪNAS           E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     MM   R. NICOLINI       A. ARABADJIEV       Mr   M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission.       Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;               Having regard to the application introduced on 12 December 1996 by Jan KUŁAKOWSKI against Poland and registered on 21 October 1997 under file No. 38270/97;     Having regard to the reports 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 1927, was a pensioner residing in Pabianice, Poland.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   Particular circumstances of the case.     As from 1927 the applicant's parents had owned real property in the Commune of Soleczniki (now situated in Lithuania).   The property in question consisted of approximately twenty-six hectares of land. On 25 April 1958 the applicant and his parents were resettled in Poland.   At the material time Soleczniki was already situated in the territory of the former Socialist Republic of Lithuania.   It had belonged to the Polish State until the Second World War.   These territories, the so-called "territories beyond the Bug River" (ziemie zabużańskie) were taken over by the Soviet Union (and, subsequently, incorporated into, inter alia, the Socialist Republic of Lithuania) as a result of the Yalta Agreement and the Treaty of 22 September 1944 between the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) and the authorities of the former Socialist Republic of Lithuania.     On 22 November 1985 the Pabianice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave judgment declaring that the applicant and his mother had jointly inherited the whole of the applicant's father's property.     On 27 March 1986 the Pabianice District Court gave judgment declaring that the applicant had inherited the whole of his mother's property.     On 9 March and, again, on 25 October 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Pabianice Town Office (Urząd Miejski) under Section 81 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on Land Administration and Expropriation, requesting compensation due for the property left by his ancestors in Soleczniki.   On an unspecified date his claim was transferred to the Pabianice District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) which was competent to deal with such claims and, in particular, enter them in the relevant register.     On 15 November 1990 the Pabianice District Office - Town Planning Division informed the applicant by a formal letter that his claim had   duly been registered on 25 October 1990 under No. 51.   The letter stated that all claims for the property left in the so-called "territories beyond the Bug River" would be dealt with successively from 1 January 1991 onwards.     In 1994, on an unspecified date, the applicant complained to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Parliament that the Polish authorities had failed to grant him the compensation to which he was entitled under the relevant post-war treaties and Section 81 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on Land Administration and Expropriation.   Both public organs, in their replies dated 17 June and 9 August 1994, respectively, stated that the question of how the State   would satisfy such claims would depend on future legislative measures, i.e. a law on re-privatisation which would be drafted in the future.     On 27 September 1995, apparently upon the applicant's subsequent complaint, the Pabianice District Office sent a letter to the applicant.   It reads as follows:     "We hereby inform you that the Pabianice District Office does not have in its possession any land owned by the State Treasury which could be used for the purpose of granting compensation for the property left in the territories beyond the Bug River.     For the above reason, as from 1990, i.e. when   district offices were established, our office has not granted such compensation to any of the persons concerned.     We do hope that this question will be resolved by the long-awaited law on re-privatisation, e.g. by means of granting State obligations to the claimants.   Stamp: Deputy Chief of the Pabianice District Office.   Signature: Jakubowski."     Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant complained to the Łódź Governor (Wojewoda), submitting that his claim for compensation had not been satisfied.   On 31 January 1996 the Governor's Office replied that the Governor could only uphold the opinions previously expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Parliament and the Pabianice District Office in their letters dated 17 June and 9 August 1994 and 27 September 1995, respectively.   In conclusion, it was stated that the applicant should await the future legislative measures which might deal with the problem of such claims.         On 12 February 1996 the Parliament Chancellery (Kancelaria Sejmu) replied to the applicant's subsequent complaint about the absence of any legislative measures aimed at satisfying the claims in question.   The applicant was informed that on 23 June 1995 all draft bills on re-privatisation had been sent to various parliamentary committees and that no final version of the draft had been prepared.   It was not possible to foresee when the law concerned would be adopted and whether, and if so how, it would address the issue raised by the applicant.   However, it was likely that claims relating to the territories beyond the Bug River would be taken into account.     On 12 December 1996 the applicant introduced his complaints to the Commission.   The application was registered on 21 October 1997.     In a letter of 30 November 1997, which was delivered to the Commission on 16 December 1997, the applicant stated that, in view of his bad health, he was uncertain as to whether or not he intended to pursue his application.     On 23 December 1997 and, thereafter, on 9 July 1998, the Commission sent letters to the applicant, requesting him to clarify his position.   The last of these letters, which had been sent by registered mail, was returned to the Commission with a note from the Pabianice Polish Post Office, dated 28 July 1998, which read: "letter undelivered - the addressee died".   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his legally recognised claim against the State Treasury to obtain compensation for property left in the so-called "territories beyond the Bug River" cannot be satisfied.       REASONS FOR THE DECISION     The Commission notes that the applicant expressed hesitations as to whether he wished to pursue his petition.   It also notes that the applicant died on an unspecified date between 30 November 1997 and 28 July 1998.   In these circumstances the Commission concludes, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application.     The Commission also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.               M. de SALVIA                                                           S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                                                                         President       to the Commission                                                    of the Commission