CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 décembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF401EEE { width:32.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     619   5.12.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS IN THE CASE OF BUDMET SP. Z O. O. v. POLAND   Thursday 5 December 2002 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application (no. 31445/96) brought by a building company based in Jelenia Gora (Poland). It has owned the Sofal company since March 1992.   Summary of the facts   As from 1 November 1988 Sofal leased a plot of land from Wojewodzkie Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcij Pomocniczej (WPPP), a state-owned land-administration company. According to the applicant company, buildings had been constructed on the land 50 or even 100 years previously, one of which was unusable. Sofal constructed new premises for its activities over an area measuring 2,627 m 2 and modernised the existing buildings.   In October 1992 WPPP was put into liquidation. On 28 July 1993 the Prefecture decided to give WPPP a right of perpetual use ( wieczyste uzytkowanie ) – retroactively from 5 December 1990 – of the land on which Sofal had constructed its buildings. The modernised buildings were sold to WPPP and the newly-constructed buildings assigned to WPPP free-of-charge. The Government maintain, among other things, that the lease stipulated that the company   could carry out maintenance work or make adaptations according to its needs, but at its own cost.   The applicant company appealed against the Prefect’s decision in its capacity as Sofal’s successor, but its appeal was declared inadmissible by the Minister for Regional Planning and Construction ( Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa ). The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant company against the Minister’s decision on the ground that it was not a party to the dispute, since the proceedings concerned only the State and WPPP.   In the meantime, WPPP had been sold to a third party by a deed of sale specifying that the liquidator of the assets was responsible for all claims against the company from the date of sale onwards. Although the applicant company maintains that it advised the liquidator of its claims on three occasions, the Government submit that it did not take any such steps.   Complaints   The applicant company complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, that it was not paid compensation for the improvements it made as the tenant of the leased property. In its submission, this situation amounts to nationalisation without compensation. Relying, further, on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), it complains that it was not recognised as a party to the administrative proceedings and that it had no remedy enabling it to recover its property or the sums invested in modernising it.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 April 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), substitute judges , and also Mark Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Krzysztof Drzewicki , Agent , Grzegorz Zyman , Jerzy Geisler , Counsel , Jacek Sadomski , Adviser ;   Applicant:   Jaroslaw Kowalski , Aneta Poplawska , Advisers .   Wojciech Jankowski, president of the applicant company, will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility - and, if appropriate, a judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.