CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2000

.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 17 April 2000 Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 33776/96 Decision 6.4.2000 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Failure to examine appeal concerning compensation for nationalised property: admissible In 1945, all real property in Warsaw was expropriated to the benefit of the State. However, as a measure of compensation, former owners were offered the right to lodge an application for ownership of their plots for a limited period; such a right could be awarded on the condition that the plots had not been reserved for public use. In 1947, J.P., husband of the first applicant and father of the other applicants, had such an application lodged on his behalf for two plots of land he had formerly owned; the authorities did not reply. In 1990, the second applicant, who had inherited J.P.'s estate, and the other applicants, requested the restitution of the two plots and a decision on the application made in 1947. The District Office rejected the request as a whole, and examined the second limb as a continuation of the 1947 application. The office maintained that the palace situated on the land had been severely damaged during the Second World War and had subsequently been rebuilt at the Government’s initiative and expense; thus, nothing justified restitution of the plots. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed to the Governor’s Office against this decision and then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected their appeal insofar as it concerned the application lodged in 1947. The court declared that, pursuant to the relevant legislation, it was not competent to deal with appeals against administrative decisions in proceedings instituted before September 1980. Insofar as the appeal concerned the 1990 application for restitution, the court examined this on the merits and found the refusal of restitution to be lawful. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (access to court as regards the application for use of the property). Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants have not shown that they had any relevant existing possessions or any legitimate expectation of having their property restored to them. Furthermore, the Convention does not guarantee a right to restitution of property: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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