CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 48570/16 Marian PIĘTKA and Rafał PIĘTKA against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   48570/16) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 August 2016 by two Polish nationals, Mr Marian Piętka and Mr Rafał Piętka (“the   applicants”), who were born in 1952 and 1977 respectively, live in Legionowo and were represented by Ms E. Prejs, a lawyer practising in Toruń; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, concerning the lack of compensation for the unlawful imposition of public fees in relation to the applicants’ professional activity to the Polish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr   J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the lack of compensation for the unlawful imposition of fees related to the professional activities of the applicants. 2.     At the material time the applicants worked as land surveyors in the town of Legionowo, in Poland. 3.     Pursuant to various resolutions taken by the Mayor of Legionowo ( starosta – “the Mayor”), the applicants were charged fees for the use of the National Surveying and Cartographic Database (to obtain copies of maps, plans and other documents). 4 .     On 18 December 2013 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court gave five judgments in cases lodged by the applicants declaring the impugned resolutions of the Mayor null and void. The administrative court observed that the basis for charging the applicants the fees in question had been section   40 of the Surveying and Cartography Act of 1989 ( Prawo geodezyjne i   kartograficzne ), which set out the general principles concerning paid services. However, the Act left the applicable rates (the calculation of the fees) to be determined by ministerial ordinance rather than a higher-ranking legal instrument. As such, the relevant provision of the Act – which instead of setting out the rates merely made reference to the ministerial ordinance – had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (judgment of 25   June 2013). As a result, in charging the applicants the fees pursuant to section 40 of the Act the Mayor had acted without a valid legal basis. The   administrative court thus held that it had constituted a flagrant error of law. 5 .     In the meantime, in 2009, the applicants had brought a civil action against the State Treasury, seeking the return of 389,600 Polish zlotys ((PLN) – 90,316 euros (EUR), as per current exchange rate), corresponding to the fees paid by them for the use of the National Surveying and Cartographic Database between 2000 and October 2009. The applicants claimed that the fees in question had been imposed without a legal basis and therefore constituted unjust enrichment. Their action was based on Articles 405 and 410 of the Polish Civil Code. 6.     Those proceedings ended on 20 November 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled that, pursuant to section 40 of the Surveying and Cartography Act and the settled case-law of the domestic courts, the mayor had been entitled to calculate and collect the fees from the applicants. That judgment was notified to their lawyer on 12 February 2016. 7 .     In 2015 the applicants brought a similar action against the Legionowo District ( powiat ), seeking the reimbursement of the fees they had had to pay based on the Mayor’s resolutions. The claim that they ultimately formulated concerned the fees paid between 24 May 2001 and “end of November 2009” (PLN 357,419 – EUR 82,862, as per current rate), and between 1 December 2009 and 12 July 2014 (PLN 69,412 – EUR 16,092, as per current rate). 8 .     These proceedings ended with a judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 13   June   2019 in which the applicants’ claim was granted in full, with interest. The domestic court held that the fees in question had been collected unlawfully. That judgment became final and enforceable, and the applicants confirmed that they had received the money awarded thereby (PLN   452,669 – EUR 104,920, as per current rate). 9.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a lack of compensation for the unlawful imposition of public fees in relation to their professional activity. In particular, they argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 20 November 2015 had disregarded the enforceable rulings of the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court of 18   December 2013, in which that court had annulled five resolutions of the Mayor on the ground of a manifest error of law. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 10.     The Court notes that the information about the second set of civil proceedings which resulted in the return of the fees paid by the applicants in 2009 and beforehand, as well as of subsequent fees up until 2014, which are not the subject matter of the present case, (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above) was submitted to the Court after notice of the present application had been given to the parties. In that context, the Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation. The applicants, in response, acknowledged that the favourable result of the above-mentioned proceedings could be of some relevance to the Court’s examination of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They emphasised, however, that the initial unfavourable ruling of the civil court had caused them stress and a financial burden suffered over the years. The applicants did not explain why their claim submitted in the course of the second set of the civil proceedings (paragraph 7 above) referred to a starting date of 24 May 2001, which was slightly different from that which was the subject matter of the first set of the civil proceedings where the starting date was “2000” (see paragraph 5 above). They also did not make any comment in this respect. 11.     The Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see Burdov v.   Russia , no. 59498/00, § 30, ECHR 2002-III, and Scordino v.   Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 179, ECHR 2006-V). 12.     The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of “victim” status unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see   Scordino , cited above, § 180, with other cases cited therein). 13.     The issue as to whether a person may still claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of the Convention essentially entails on the part of the Court an ex post facto examination of his or her situation (see Scordino , cited above, §   181, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §   82, ECHR 2012). 14.     In the present case, the Court observes firstly that the applicants’ pecuniary loss was redressed as a result of the second set of civil proceedings described above as the domestic court awarded the applicants the amount sought by them, with interest. The Court notes that the applicants did not seek any compensation for non-pecuniary damage in those or, to the Court’s knowledge, in any other proceedings. Moreover, in so far as there was a slight difference in the starting date of the claims submitted in the two sets of civil proceedings (see paragraphs 5, 7 and 10 above), the Court notes that the applicants did not make any comment to explain this difference. 15.     Secondly, in its reasoning, the domestic court held that the fees had been collected in breach of national law. In the Court’s view, that finding constituted, in substance, an acknowledgment of the violation of the applicants’ property rights. The Court also observes that a similar acknowledgment can be found in the five judgments given by the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court on 18 December 2013 (see paragraph   4 above). 16.     Accordingly, the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of the alleged violation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The application is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 June 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Lətif Hüseynov   Deputy Registrar   President