CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 4 February 2015   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32045/10 CHRISTIAN BAPTIST CHURCH IN WROCŁAW against Poland lodged on 9 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Kościół Chrześcijan Baptystów (the Christian Baptist Church), is a Polish legal entity with its seat in Wrocław. It is represented before the Court by Ms D. Bober and Mr D. Krupa, lawyers practising in Wrocław. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case The case concerns a property with a four-storey building and another building dedicated to sacral purposes in Wroclaw. Before World War II the property was owned by the Baptist Church operating on the territory of the German Reich. The property number was 1077/42. It measured 0.785 ha. On 4 September 1946 the Governor decided that the property in question should become subject to the applicant’s management (przejęcie w zarząd) on the basis of Section 2 (4) of the 1946 decree on abandoned property (dekret o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich) . In 1956 the applicant lodged a request to be registered in the land and mortgage register as the owner of the property and the request was granted. The property was registered under the number 945. On 23   April   1959 the Minister of Economy announced a new interpretation of Article 2 (4) of the 1946 decree. On 23 June 1959 the District Housing Buildings Management for Wroclaw-Krzyki (Dzielnicowy Zarząd Budynków Mieszkalnych) decided that all kinds of property which were subject to the church’s management were owned by the State Treasury and ordered that the applicant transfer the property in question to the State. The order did not concern the part of the property which was dedicated exclusively to sacral purposes. On 19 August 1996 a new land register number 35905 was opened for the property no. 1077/42. The land register number 945 was however not closed. In 1968 the property registered under the land register number 35905 was given a new number 9 and its surface was recalculated. The new measurement was 0.371 ha. It follows that the plot number 9 constituted only a part of the previous property number 1077/42 and comprised only the building dedicated to sacral purposes. The remaining part of the original property number 1077/42, which comprised the four-storey building, was given new numbers 39 and 33/5. It measured 0.325 ha and a new land register number 63650 was opened for it. In 1977 the State Treasury was registered as the owner of this property and, after the reform of the lo cal governments of 1990, the property was transferred to the City of Wrocław. The present application concerns the right to the property referred to above. 2.     Administrative proceedings On 9   May 1996 the applicant requested the Dolnośląski Governor to issue a decision confirming the applicant’s ownership of the property in question. It relied on a new Act of 30   June   1995 on relationships between the Republic of Poland and the Christian Baptist Church (ustawa o stosunku Państwa Polskiego do Kościola Chrześcijan Baptystów w RP) (“the 1995 Act”). On 12   September   1996 the Dolnośląski Governor refused to issue a decision which would confirm that the property in question had been acquired by the applicant. The Governor found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirement laid down in Section 39 of the 1995 Act, namely that it did not possess the property in question on the day of entry into force of the Act relied upon. On 23   September   1996 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Minister of Interior and Administration. On 18   February   1998 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister specifying that the time-limits laid down in the Code of Administrative Proceedings had been exceeded and requested the Minister to issue a decision. On 1   July   1998 the Minister replied that the length of the proceedings was attributable to amendments of the 1995 Act and informed the applicant that the relevant decision would be issued by 15   August   1998. This time-limit was not respected and therefore, on 12   January   1999, the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the administrative authority. On 5 March 1999, before examination of the applicant’s complaint, the Minister of Interior and Administration issued a decision, quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case. The Minister ordered that, when reexamining the case, the Governor should take into account the amended Section 4 of the 1995 Act. In view of the fact that the Minister issued a decision, on 28 April 1999 the applicant withdrew the complaint of 12   January   1999 about the inactivity of the administrative authority. After remittal of the case, on 24 March 1999, the Dolnośląski Governor asked the Wroclaw Commune whether there was any property available which could be granted to the applicant in return for the property in question. It appears that the Governor’s letter was left without reply. On 29   May   1999 the Governor requested the Minister of Interior and Administration for official interpretation of the amended Section 4 of the 1995 Act “in view of many doubts as regards the proper interpretation of this provision”. On 20 June 2000 the Minister replied that, since the administrative authorities are bound by provisions of law binding on the day of decision, it was irrelevant that the applicant’s original request had been lodged at the time when Section 4 of the 1995 Act had different wording. On 21   July   2000 the applicant requested the Governor to issue the decision in its case, pointing out that the time-limits laid down in the Code of Administrative Proceedings had been exceeded. On 20   October   2000 the applicant lodged a complaint (zażalenie) to the Minister of Interior and Administration that the Governor had exceeded the statutory time-limits and had failed to issue a decision on the merits or to justify the delay in the proceedings. On 7   December   2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the inactivity of the Governor. On 1 March 2001 the Minister of Interior and Administration found the applicant’s complaint of 20 October 2000 well founded and ordered the Governor to issue a decision on the merits until 30   April   2001. On 30   April   2001 the Governor stayed the proceedings. On 7   July   2001 the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings. On 17   December   2001 the Minister of Interior and Administration granted the appeal, found that the proceedings should not have been stayed, quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case. On 12   March   2002 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant’s complaint against the inactivity of the administrative authority and ordered the Dolnośląski Governor to issue a decision on the merits within the time-limit of 30 days. On 21   June 2002 the Governor gave a decision and refused to return the property in question to the applicant. It found that the applicant, although registered as owner under the land register number 945, had never in fact owned the property. On 12   July   2002 the applicant appealed. On 23   September   2002 the Minister of Interior and Administration quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case for re-examination. The Minister found, among other things, that the Governor had had no right to question the validity of the entry in the land register. On 23   February   2003 the applicant complained to the Governor about the delay in the proceedings. On 8   February   2007 the Governor gave a procedural decision in which it held that due to the particularly complicated nature of the case, the decision on the merits could not be issued within the statutory time-limits and set a new time-limit for decision until 30   June   2007. On 18   June   2007 the Dolnośląski Governor gave a decision on the merits and refused to return to the applicant the property in question. The Governor relied on the amended 1995 Act and found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements laid down in Section   4 of the Act, namely that it could not be a legal successor of the Church which did not operate on the territory of Poland before 1   September 1939. On 11   July   2007 the applicant appealed. On 6   February   2008 the Minister of Interior and Administration upheld the challenged decision. On 11   March   2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. On 12   September   2008 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. On 10   November   2008 the applicant lodged a complaint against the Regional Administrative Court’s judgment with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 13   October   2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 6   January   2010. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice At the time when the applicant lodged the first request for return of the property, Section   4 of the Act of 30 June 1995 on relationships between the Republic of Poland and the Christian Baptist Church (ustawa o stosunku Państwa Polskiego do Kościola Chrześcijan Baptystów w RP) provided as follows: “The (Baptist) Church and its legal entities are the legal successors of Baptist local communities (zbór) and organisations operating on the current territory of the Republic of Poland before 1 September 1939” On 30   May   1998 a new version of Article 4 of the 1995 Act came into force. Article   4 after amendments provides as follows: “The (Baptist) Church and its legal entities are the legal successors of Baptist local communities and organisations operating on the territory of the Republic of Poland before 1 September 1939.” Section   39 of the 1995 Act, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “1. Properties or parts thereof which on the day of entry into force of this act are in the possession of the Church or its legal entities become ipso iure their property if: 1). they were in the possession of legal entities referred to in Section 4 of the Act; (...).” Section   40 of the 1995 Act provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1. Proceedings for return of the nationalised property or parts thereof, which are not in the possession of the Church or its legal entities, referred to in Section   39 paragraph 1 (1) are instituted upon request of the Church of its legal entities notwithstanding the legal basis and way of nationalisation; the above does not concern property nationalised after 1945 for which compensation was paid (...)” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of administrative proceedings. It further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the administrative proceedings for return of property and about the alleged violation of its property rights, due to legislative changes which entered into force with immediate effect and were applied retroactively to the proceedings previously instituted by the applicant.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have an asset protected under Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1?   2.     Was the applicant the legal succesor of the Baptist Church in Germany under the original version of Section 4 of the 1995 Act?   3.     Were the applicant’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 respected? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegation that when it lodged the request for return of property, it satisfied the requirements laid down in the relevant provisions of law (the original version of Section 4 of the 1995 Act) to have the property returned. The legislative changes entered into force with immediate effect and were applied retroactively to the applicant’s case. A further reference is made to the fact that the land register   no.   945 still exists and the applicant is registered there as owner of the property in question.   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the disadvantageous legislative changes which entered into force with immediate effect and had a retroactive effect on the relevant administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant (see Scordino v.   Italy   (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   126-133, ECHR 2006 ‑ V).   5.     Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies? Reference is made especially to the constitutional complaint and the application being based on Article 191   §   1 point 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.