CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sD444500 { height:36.4pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s43493E55 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sECE322C2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 27 February 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 78986/12 Halina JAROCKA and Wiesława ŻAK against Poland and 4 other applications (see list appended) The applicants listed in the attached table are Polish nationals. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Administrative proceedings The applicants were involved in various types of administrative proceedings. The proceedings in their cases lasted between six years (the shortest set of proceedings) to over thirteen years (the longest set of the proceedings). The details of the proceedings in respect of each applicant may be found in the attached table. 2.     Length-of-proceedings complaints All applicants made use of the available domestic remedies for the allegedly lengthy administrative proceedings. They lodged complaints under the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings ( Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego ) (“the CAP”) and the Administrative Courts Act of 30 August 2002 ( Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi (“the 2002 Act”). In most cases the administrative authorities found the complaints well founded (applications nos. 59805/14, 14093/16, 14725/18) and ordered the lower instances to deliver a decision in the case within a prescribed time limit. However, none of those remedies, either individually or in combination, resulted in the acceleration of the proceedings or offered any redress to the applicants. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law concerning the remedies against the excessive length of administrative proceedings is set out in the Court’s judgment in the case Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland (nos.   49725/11 and 79950/13, §§   88 ‑ 102, 8 November 2018). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in their cases and of an ineffective remedy in that respect. 2.     They further allege either expressly, or in substance, that the excessive length of the administrative proceedings in their cases had constituted a breach of their right to property pursuant to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law on the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 has there been a violation of this provision in the applicants’ cases?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland , nos.   49725/11 and 79950/13, §§ 166-168, 8 November 2018)?   3.     Does the length of the administrative proceedings in the present cases also give rise to an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of that provision (see Wcisło and   Cabaj, cited above, §§198,199)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Notes Relevant period under Article 6 § 1 Length-of-proceedings complaints   78986/12 26/11/2012 Halina JAROCKA 17/10/1935 Chełm   Represented by Marcin GĘBICKI   Wiesława ŻAK 14/01/1946 Krapkowice Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for property expropriated in the 1970s (preceded by proceedings for declaring a decision null and void from 1 December 1995 until 8 June 2004). The proceedings for compensation were instituted on 23 June 2005 and terminated on 3   October 2013 by a decision of the Lubelski Governor (GN-Ch.7534.1.2.2013). Administrative authorities at two levels and one administrative court.   6 years and more than 7 months (from 19 March 2007 the decision of the Chełmno Mayor until 3 October 2013). Several complaints lodged. Most recent complaint under Article 37 of the CAP lodged on 20 January 2012.   23925/13 18/03/2013 Bogusława NAPIERAŁA 18/04/1956 Bielsko-Biała   Jerzy KUBICA 01/03/1928 Szczyrk Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for property expropriated for the purpose of construction of a public road instituted on 5 October (the second applicant) and 29   December 2005 (the first applicant) and still pending before the Bielsko Biała Mayor. Administrative authorities at two levels and two instances of administrative courts.     8 years and 4 months (from 16   August   2010, the date of appeal against the decision of the Bielsko-Biała Mayor). Complaint under 2002 Act: on 6   September 2010 the Gliwice Regional Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the alleged inactivity of the Bielski Governor (II SAB/GI 43/10), A further complaint was rejected by the Gliwice Regional Administrative Court on procedural grounds on 22 April 2011 (II SAB/GL 5/11).     59805/14 21/08/2014 Jerzy HERMANN 27/02/1939 Sulejówek   Represented by Jacek BARANOWSKI Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for property expropriated on the ground of 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw, instituted on 15 April 1991 and pending. Administrative authorities at two levels and one administrative court.     13 years and 7 months (from 1   July 2005 the date of appeal against the first-instance decision of the Mayor of Warsaw). Complaint under Article 37 of CAP: on 2 November 2011 the Mazowiecki Governor found the complaint well-founded and ordered the Mayor to issue a decision within three months. Complaint under 2002 Act: on 6   March   2012 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court ordered the relevant authority to issue a decision within one month (I SAB/Wa 488/11). On 7   November 2014 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court confirmed imposed a fine of PLN   5,000 on Warsaw Mayor (I   SA/Wa 2988/14).   14093/16 07/03/2016 Marian DANIELEWICZ 28/01/1939 LUBLIN Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for property expropriated on the ground of 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw, instituted on 8 March 1991 and terminated by the decision of the Mayor of Warsaw of 27 August 2015 granting the applicant compensation (GK-DW-III-JMI-7227-47-92-08) (served on the applicant on 7   September 2015). Administrative authorities at two levels.     11 years and nearly 10 months (from 5   November 2003, date of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Warsaw Mayor of 16 October 2003 until 27   August 2015). Several complaints lodged. Most recent complaint under the 2002 Act: on 8 May 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court (I SAB/Wa 105/12) ordered the Mayor of Warsaw to issue a decision within one month and held that the excessive delay in conducting the proceedings was not in flagrant breach of law.     14725/18 21/03/2018 Mirosława BOBOWICZ 09/12/1930 Warsaw   Represented by Karol TRZASKA Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for land expropriated by the Warsaw Municipality in 1998; instituted on 27 July 2005 and still pending before the Mazowiecki Governor. Administrative authorities at two levels and one administrative court.           6 years and 3 months (from 6 November 2012, the date of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Mayor of Warsaw of 19 October 2012).     On 15 April 2015 the applicant lodged with the Mazowiecki Governor the Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in respect of the proceedings conducted by the Warsaw Mayor. On 14 September 2015 the Mazowiecki Governor granted the applicant complaint and obliged the Mayor to give a decision within 3 months’ time-limit.