CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 octobre 2001

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 35 October 2001 Potocka and Others v. Poland - 33776/96 Judgment 4.10.2001 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Scope of jurisdiction of Supreme Administrative Court: no violation Article 35 Article 35-3-a Ratione temporis Legislation defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court: no violation Facts : In 1947, an application was made on behalf of Józef Potocki for temporary ownership of two plots of land which had been expropriated in 1945. Under the relevant provision, the authorities could grant such temporary ownership if it was established that the property had not been designated for public use and temporary ownership would not be incompatible with such use. The application remained unanswered. In 1990, the applicants inherited the estate of Józef Potocki and lodged a request for restitution of the plots. The administrative authorities refused to return the plots to the applicants or to grant them the right to perpetual use, pointing out that the palace built on the plots had been largely destroyed during the war and had been rebuilt at State expense. The applicants ultimately appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected the appeal in 1995. With regard to the application for temporary ownership, the court held that it could not review the application for temporary use, lodged in 1947, since it was not competent to deal with appeals against administrative decisions where the proceedings had been instituted before 1   September 1980. With regard to the applicants' request for restitution and the right to perpetual use, the court considered that the authorities had failed to show why restitution would be incompatible with public use but nevertheless held that the decision of the administrative authorities had been lawful. Law : Article 6 § 1 (temporal limitation on the Supreme Administrative Court's jurisdiction) – The Supreme Administrative Court Act, which had come into force on 1   September 1980, provided unequivocally that judicial review was not available where administrative proceedings had been instituted before that date. The legislation was enacted prior to the date on which Poland's acceptance of the right of individual petition came into effect and it was that legislation which deprived the applicants of their right of access to a court. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Administrative Court merely highlighted the impossibility of judicial review. This part of the case thus fell outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis . Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 1 (scope of jurisdiction) – The scope of the Supreme Administrative Court's jurisdiction was limited to an assessment of the lawfulness of the administrative decision but was not confined to assessing whether the decision was compatible with substantive law, since the court was empowered to set aside a decision if it was established that procedural requirements of fairness had not been met. The court examined whether the administrative authorities had complied with their procedural obligations and, while it found that the authorities had fallen short of their obligations, its reasoning showed that it had in fact examined the expediency aspect of the case. The court had stated that the decision was in any event lawful. The court's reasoning showed that it had considered all the applicants' submissions on their merits, without having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them or in ascertaining the relevant facts. The scope of review was thus sufficient to comply with Article   6 § 1. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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