CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 55853/15 Ewa SIDOR and Andrzej SIDOR against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   November 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Artūrs Kučs , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   55853/15) 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 2   November 2015 by two Polish nationals, Ms Ewa Sidor and Mr Andrzej Sidor (“the applicants”), who were born in 1965 and 1963 respectively, live in Lublin and were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, 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 application concerns the expropriation of the applicants’ land for the purpose of construction of a public road in 2011 and subsequent proceedings for compensation. The expropriation 2.     In April 2002 the applicants bought a plot of land located in the vicinity of Lublin. It appears from the applicants’ submissions that they had known that the local authorities had been for some years intending to amend the local development plan and to build a road on that land. 3.     On 28 June 2002 the local authorities announced a public display of the draft amendment to the local development plan. The applicants complained about the planned amendment as it proposed the location of a public road on their plot. Their appeal was dismissed by the Lublin municipality and the applicants did not appeal to an administrative court, agreeing to the necessity of the road. In 2004 the applicant finished construction of the house on their plot. 4.     On 17 March 2005 the Lublin City Council adopted the proposed local development plan where it designated plots of land on which the applicants’ house was built for the construction of an express road. The Government submitted that the applicants failed to appeal against the local development plan to the administrative courts. 5.     The authorities made an attempt to start the construction immediately, but abandoned it, and the expropriation proceedings were discontinued on 3   October 2005. 6.     On 14 July 2011 the General Agency of Public Roads and Motorways (“the Agency”) applied to the Lubelski Governor for a decision authorising the construction of the road on the applicants’ land ( zezwolenie na realizację inwestycji drogowej ) . 7.     On 5 December 2011 the Governor agreed to the construction; the decision was given a clause of immediate enforceability. The applicants appealed. 8.     Thereafter, the administrative proceedings were pending before various bodies including the Minister of Transport, the Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. On one occasion, on 11   September 2013, the case was quashed by the Regional Administrative Court on formal grounds and re-examined. The final ruling dismissing the applicants’ cassation appeal was given on 15 April 2015 by the Supreme Administrative Court (notified to them on 7   July 2015). The domestic courts found that the authorities had taken into account the public interest, environmental requirements, the protection of the interests of third parties, had analysed the alternative plans in respect of the road and had chosen the best option from an environmental and economic point of view. They also noted that the applicants had been granted adequate compensation. The domestic courts held that the construction of the public road had been in accordance with the law. 9.     Following the decision of 5 December 2011, the applicants were asked to vacate the property. The Governor offered them temporary accommodation in a flat located in Lublin with a lease paid by the authorities until 28   September 2012. The applicants complained about the standard of the flat but accepted the temporary accommodation on 24 April 2012, when they vacated the property, and moved in. They stayed until 6 August 2012 when they moved out to a house rented by them. The compensation 10.     On 24 July 2012 an expert submitted an opinion estimating the value of the applicants’ property ( operat czacunkowy ). The opinion, which was twenty-six pages long, estimated the value of the land, the house with its equipment, the garage and the greenery in the garden. It was based on median prices of a large number of transactions from 2012, 2011 and 2010 from the exact location and the surrounding ones. 11.     On 4 October 2012 the Lubelski Governor gave a decision and fixed the amount of compensation at 1,086,000 Polish zlotys (PLN, exceeding by PLN   10,000 the estimation proposed by the expert, approximately 266,000 euros). 12.     On 25 February 2013 the Minister upheld the Governor’s decision. On 18   March 2013 the applicants received the compensation. They lodged further appeals to the administrative courts. 13 .     On 9 December 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the case upholding the Governor’s and Minister’s decisions. The court considered that the expert opinion had been prepared in full compliance with all legal and professional requirements. The opinion could have been controlled by the professional body of experts, under a particular provision of law, however the applicants had not taken advantage of this procedure. 14.     On 12 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicants concerning the excessive length of the compensation proceedings. 15.     Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained that after the new local development plan was adopted in 2005, they were not able to develop their property and sustained damage in this connection. They also complain about the expropriation which took place in 2011 and the amount of compensation received by them. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 16.     The Government raised several preliminary objections, in particular regarding lack of significant disadvantage for the applicants and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Court finds it unnecessary to rule on these objections since it considers the application to be in any event manifestly ill ‑ founded, for the following reasons. 17.     The Court notes that the plots of land on which the applicants had built their house was designated for the purpose of a public road by a local development plan adopted in 2005. In 2011 the authorities decided to start the construction of the road; on 5 December 2011 the Lubelski Governor issued a decision authorising the construction which amounted to an expropriation of the applicants’ land. The applicants were asked to vacate the property which they did on 24 April 2012. On 18 March 2013 they obtained compensation for the property. 18.     In so far as the applicants complained that after the adoption of the local development plan in 2005, they had been limited in their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, because their land had been designated for a road, but the expropriation had not yet taken place, the Court notes that the expropriation decision had been taken on 5 December 2011 and the applicants vacated the property on 24 April 2012. The alleged period of uncertainty, or control of the use of their property, ended at that time. The Court reiterates that the deprivation of an individual’s property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of “deprivation” of his or her rights (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic   (dec.) [GC], no.   33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI). The applicants complained to the Court on 2 November 2015. Thus, this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention (see Pyzel and Others v. Poland , no. 29460/04, 8   December 2009). 19.     In any event, it should be noted that the applicants submitted no information or evidence substantiating the argument that they had been adversely affected by the local development plan in force between 2005 and 2011. In particular there is no appearance that during this period they applied for any construction permits (compare and contrast Skibińscy v.   Poland , no.   52589/99 , 14 November 2006). In this connection the Court also notes the Government’s objection that the applicants did not appeal against the local development plan of 2005. 20.     In their observations, the applicants developed their main complaint that the expropriation constituted an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They acknowledged that the purpose of building a public road had been in the public interest and that the State had enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in such cases. They also agreed that the road had been a necessary project for the local community, and they had not objected to it; their complaints raised at the domestic level concerned alternative tracing of the road and the amount of compensation. 21.     The Court firstly notes that the applicants did not argue that the deprivation of their possession following the decision of December 2011 authorising the construction of the road had been given in breach of the law. It notes that although it received immediate enforcement clause, the ruling had been appealed against and ultimately upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 15 April 2015. The legality of the interference had therefore been confirmed by the domestic courts. 22.     The applicants essentially complained that they had been forced to bear an excessive burden. However, the Court notes that in the period directly following the expropriation, they had obtained free temporary housing from the authorities. In so far as the applicants complain about the amount of compensation paid to them, the Court notes that it had been set on the basis of an expert opinion and reviewed by the administrative courts. Moreover, as indicated by the domestic court, the applicants could have had the expert opinion reviewed by the expert’s professional association; a remedy explicitly provided by law and indicated as effective by the domestic court on 9 December 2015, but not used in the case at hand (see paragraph   13 above). In respect of the delay in obtaining compensation, the Court notes that the payment was made on 18 March 2013 – while the proceedings were pending before the administrative courts – which cannot be considered an excessive delay. 23.     The Court also notes that in the proceedings concerning authorisation to construct the road and compensation, the applicants were represented and had ample opportunities to advance all arguments which they regarded as pertinent for the outcome of the cases. They lodged numerous appeals, some of which were successful in respect of some minor procedural shortcomings which were subsequently remedied when the authorities re-examined the case. 24.     The Court reiterates that it will respect the national authorities’ judgment in this connection unless it was manifestly without reasonable foundation. In the case at hand, it finds no appearance of arbitrariness or that the findings reached were otherwise manifestly unreasonable. 25.     Having regard to the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, the Court concludes that a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the public and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights and that the burden on the applicants was neither disproportionate nor excessive. 26.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 December 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President