CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 décembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sEA7A29CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 50 February 2003 Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC] - 31443/96 Decision 19.12.2002 [GC] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Claim for compensatory land in respect of property abandoned as a result of boundary changes following the Second World War: admissible Following the Second World War, the Polish State undertook to compensate persons who had been “repatriated” from the so-called“territories beyond the Bug river”, which no longer formed part of Poland (and now include certain areas of present-day Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania), in respect of property which they had been obliged to abandon there. Such persons were, and under the law now in force still are,entitled to have the value of the abandoned property deducted either from the price of immovable property purchased from the State or from the fee for “perpetual use” of State property. In 1968, the applicant’s mother inherited the estate of his grandmother, who had abandoned a plot of approximately 400m 2 and a house when repatriated. The applicant’s mother was subsequently granted the right of “perpetual use” (for a maximum period of 99 years), of a plot of State land measuring 467m 2 , at a fee of PLZ 392 per year. For the purposes of the compensation due from the State, the value of the abandoned property was fixed at PLZ   532,260 and this amount was deducted from the total fee for “perpetual use”. After inheriting his mother’s estate, the applicant requested payment of the remainder of the compensation due. He was informed that as a result of the enactment of the Local Self-Government Act in 1990, by which most State land had been transferred to the local authorities, it was not possible to satisfy his claim. In 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the alleged inactivity on the part of the Government in that they had failed to introduce legislation dealing with such claims. Between 1993 and 2001, the State enacted several statutes that further reduced the already small stock of property   designated for compensating repatriated persons. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Court was competent to examine the facts for their compatibility with the Convention only in so far as they had occurred after the date of Poland’s ratification of Protocol No. 1 on 10 October 1994, but it could have regard to the facts prior to ratification in as much as they could be considered to have created a situation extending beyond that date or might be relevant to the understanding of facts occurring after that date. The applicant did not complain of being deprived of the abandoned property or about the denial of a compensation claim based on laws or facts pre-dating ratification of the Protocol, nor was his complaint directed against a single specific decision or measure taken before, or even after, that date. Rather, the factual basis for his Convention claim was the alleged failure to satisfy an entitlement to compensation vested in him under Polish law on the date of the Protocol’s entry in force and which, despite intervening legislation, still subsisted. Both at the time of ratification and when the applicant lodged his application, he was entitled under Polish law to obtain a reduction in the price, or in the fee for perpetual use, of immovable property purchased from the State and an identical entitlement was now laid down in other legislation. In so far as the applicant’s complaints were directed against the acts and omissions of the State in relation to the implementation of that entitlement to a compensation, which still existed today, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application and the Government’s plea of lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis had to be rejected. As to whether the applicant had a “possession”, it appeared not to have been contested that Poland had taken on an obligation to compensate repatriated persons for the loss of abandoned property. There was no need to examine in detail the nature and extent of that obligation, sincethere was no dispute over the fact that it was subsequently incorporated into Polish law in the form of an entitlement to credit the value of the abandoned property against the price, or fee for perpetual use, of property purchased from the State. The legal basis for that entitlement had been established in domestic legislation on a continuing basis which subsisted after 10 October 1994 and while it was unnecessary to determine the precise content and scope of the legal interest in question – as that issue should more appropriately be dealt with at the merits stage – the Court was satisfied that the applicant had a proprietary interest recognised under Polish law and eligible for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes