CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } FOURTH SECTION Applic ation no. 59189/10 Artur KUBRAK against Poland STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Artur Kubrak, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Wrocław. His application was lodged on 1   October 2010. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 28 August 2003 the applicant purchased a so ‑ called quasi ‑ proprietorial right to a flat ( spółdzielcze własnościowe prawo do lokalu ). However, the applicant could not use his apartment since it was occupied by third parties. On 12 October 2006 the Wrocław District Court gave a judgment ordering their eviction. The eviction was to be carried out on the condition that the defendants would be granted social accommodation by the municipality. The eviction was stayed until the social accommodation was allocated. Since the Wrocław Municipality did not have social housing at its disposal, the applicant could not exercise his rights in respect of the apartment. The persons living in the apartment failed to pay rent, in the monthly amount of approximately PLN   450, either to the housing co-operative or to the applicant. A number of judgments against the applicant was given (on 18   March 2005, 13 March 2006 18 December 2007) by which he was ordered to pay rent in arrears to the co ‑ operative. As he failed to pay the rent, enforcement proceedings against him were instituted. He owes the co ‑ operative the amount of PLN 60,000 and pays the rent in arrears in instalments. The applicant wrote numerous letters to the municipality of Wrocław, at least on six occasions, requesting information on the possibilities of allocating social housing to persons living in his apartment. In reply, he was informed that his case would be dealt with when any social apartments at the municipality’s disposal fell vacant. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that his right to respect for his home and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions have been violated. The judgment in his favour, given on 12 October 2006, cannot be enforced because the authorities refused to grant him any effective assistance in connection with the eviction of persons living in his apartment who fail to pay rent either to him or to the co-operative. As a result, he cannot make any use of his apartment. He submits that he cannot afford to pay rent for two apartments. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V?