CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 2 May 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36300/15 Wioletta GEJER MISSBACH against Poland lodged on 13 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Wioletta Gejer Missbach, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Stargard Szczeciński. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Szulczewski, a lawyer practising in Stargard Szczeciński. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background of the case The applicant owns a house in Klępino, which has been occupied on the basis of a rent-free contract ( umowa użyczenia ) by E.H., J.H. and their children (“the tenants”). On 27   August 2009 the applicant terminated the contract. On 14   December 2009 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court found against the tenants and ordered them to leave the property. At the same time the District Court granted them the right to be provided with social accommodation by the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality and suspended the order to leave the property until the municipality had provided them with such housing. The judgment became final on 2   March 2010. The tenants have stayed in the applicant’s property since then and the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality has not offered them any social accommodation. 2.     Civil proceedings for compensation On 19   July 2010 the applicant brought a claim for compensation against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality. She relied on section   18(5) of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Tenants, Municipal Housing Resources and on Amendments to the Civil Code of 21   June 2001 ( Ustawa o ochronie praw lokatorów, mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie Kodeksu cywilnego – “the 2001 Act”). On 29   July 2010 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court issued a payment order ( nakaz zapłaty ) of 7,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,750   euros (EUR)) against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality in accelerated proceedings. Only the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality filed an objection. The payment order became final with respect to the tenants. On 23   November 2011 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court granted the applicant’s claim. It ordered the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality to pay the applicant PLN   2,165 (approximately EUR   541) in compensation. The court made a reservation that if the other defendants paid the compensation, the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality would be exempted. On an unspecified later date the applicant brought a claim against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeciński Municipality in order to establish that the tenants had no right to social housing and that the municipality was no longer obliged to provide it for them. On 12   August 2014 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as the social accommodation question had already been determined. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal. She submitted that the tenants’ financial situation had improved since the final decision of 14   December 2009. On 29   December 2014 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal. The court found that the right to receive social accommodation had been granted in a final decision. In addition, the applicant could bring a fresh compensation claim against Stargard Szczeciński Municipality under section 18(5) of the 2001   Act. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 15   January 2015. B.     Relevant domestic law Section   18 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Tenants, Municipal Housing Resources and on Amendments to the Civil Code of 21   June 2001 ( Ustawa   o   ochronie praw lokatorów, mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i   o   zmianie Kodeksu cywilnego ) provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Persons occupying an apartment without legal title must pay compensation for each month until they vacate the apartment. 2.     Subject to subsection 3, such compensation shall be equal to the amount of rent the owner could obtain if the apartment was rented out [...]. 3.     Where people are entitled to social accommodation and a court has decided to suspend their obligation to leave an apartment until they have been offered social accommodation, they shall pay compensation equal to the amount of rent or other fees for using the apartment which they would pay if the legal relationship still existed. 4.     [repealed] 5.     If a municipality fails to provide social accommodation to a person entitled to it under a final court judgment, the owner [of an apartment] has the right to claim compensation from the municipality, on the basis of Article   417 of the Civil Code.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 of a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? 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)?