CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   138 26.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1] One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Buczkiewicz v. Poland (application no. 10446/03) The applicants, Wanda Buczkiewicz and Antoni Buczkiewicz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1947 and 1951, respectively, and live in Warsaw. In 1993 they inherited a plot of land in the municipality of Warszawa-Włochy.   The case concerned the decision in 1992 by the local authorities to expropriate the applicants’ plot of land in order to construct a major roadway which would link the municipality with Warsaw. The applicants complained that the expropriation was planned at some point in the future, which meant that they could only use their property for agricultural purposes, and that, under Polish law, they were not entitled to compensation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the interference with the applicants’ property rights, based on the Local Planning Act 1994 and subsequent legislation, had been “provided by law” and had pursued, in the general interest of the community, the legitimate aim of a local development plan. However, in the Court’s view, the uncertainty of that plan had, seen as a whole, failed to strike the requisite fair balance between competing general and individual interests. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and awarded the applicants 5,000   euros (EUR), jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Karpow v. Poland (no. 3429/03)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.