CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s2E3C74DB { width:123.48%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEBAB7B32 { width:6.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s94228ECB { width:32.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF760864F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11ADA21B { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC590A1FB { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sED14A66D { width:6.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B4103B7 { width:32.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45217B2F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6C38EDA8 { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30ADBAC4 { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 9 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36163/20 Wojciech OKONIEWSKI and Others against Poland lodged on 6 August 2020 communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings pending since 2010, in which the applicants seek compensation for property expropriated in 1945. In 2014 the Mayor of Warsaw issued a decision and granted the applicants compensation for part of the property in question and held that the compensation for the remaining part of the property would be examined in a separate decision. However, no decision has been issued to date. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the delay in payment of compensation amounts to a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They submit that the Mayor’s decision of 2014 confirmed their legitimate expectation of obtaining compensation for the remainder of the expropriated property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the entitlement to compensation conferred on owners of nationalised property by sub-section 215 (1) of the Law on Land Administration give rise to “possessions” in favour of the applicants, which were eligible for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Czajkowska and Others v. Poland , no. 16651/05, §   62, 13 July 2010)? Reference is made to the letter of the Mayor of Warsaw of 5 September 2013 in which it was stated that the applicants’ request had not yet been examined “because of lack of financial resources”; to the letter of 17 June 2014 which confirmed that the evidence had been gathered and a decision on the merits could be issued; and to the decision of 4 July 2014 granting compensation for part of the expropriated property.   2.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? Reference is made to the fact that the domestic authorities have not yet dealt with the totality of the applicants’ claim for compensation for the land expropriated under the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw.   3.     In particular, did the delay in processing the applicants’ request for compensation in relation to the remaining part of the property impose an excessive individual burden on them (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal , nos.   29813/96 and 30229/96, §   54, ECHR   2000 ‑ I)? List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Wojciech OKONIEWSKI 1950 Polish Zielona Góra 2. Maryla OKONIEWSKA 1953 Polish Gostynin 3. Jozef URBANSKI 1947 Polish Sosnowiec 4. Magdalena OKONIEWSKA 1946 Polish Gąbin 5. Mateusz URBAŃSKI 1952 Polish Chrząstowice