CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4566725A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s8859A5EC { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     439   19.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ZWIERZYŃSKI v. POLAND   In a judgment [1] (available only in French) today notified in writing in the case of Zwierzyński v. Poland (application number 34049/96), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage with regard to the violation of Article 6 § 1 and PLN 25,000 for legal costs and expenses. Regarding the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision.   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Polish national, Ryszard Zwierzyński, who was born in 1949 and lives in Olsztyn. He is a doctor.   In 1952 a building belonging to the applicant’s father was expropriated in the public interest. The applicant’s father sought restitution of the property and - after his death - his heirs, including the applicant, continued that action. Finally, on 24 July 1992, the Minister for Economic Affairs declared the expropriation procedure in 1952 null and void. On 23   November 1993 the Administrative Court upheld the Minister’s annulment decision. As a result, the applicant became the owner of the building retrospectively.   However, he has still not been able to recover the property on account of proceedings brought in 1992 by the Treasury on behalf of the regional police authority (the present occupier) asserting acquisition of title to the property through prescription. Those proceedings are still pending.   The regional police authority also informed the heirs of the pre-Second World War owner of the property that there was an action concerning the division of the estate. Considering that they had rights over the building, the heirs of the former owner took steps to reopen those proceedings, but their application was dismissed. They appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, which upheld their appeal and remitted the case to the Olsztyn Regional Court, where it is still pending.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 July 1996. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and allocated to the First Section of the Court. A public hearing was held on 23 May 2000 and the Chamber declared the application admissible on 15 June 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), President , Luigi Ferrari Bravo [2] (Italian), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings (more than eight years and seven months and still pending). He further alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that his right of property had been infringed as a result of unfair proceedings.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that successive suspensions of the proceedings had been the main cause of the delay complained of. However, it was unable to disregard the general context of the case, particularly the conduct of the regional police authority throughout the proceedings which had given rise to the case. While a suspension might be justified by objective facts, the sole purpose of the proceedings brought in the present case by the police authority or at its instigation had been to delay restitution of the property to the applicant.   The Court observed that it attached special importance to the principle established in its case-law to the effect that it was the responsibility of Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts could guarantee to everyone the right to a final determination of his civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time. Consequently, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and particularly the conduct of the State, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Court considered that there had been a manifest interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in that the regional police authority had continued to occupy the property notwithstanding the fact that an administrative decision had retrospectively recognised the applicant’s father, to whose estate the applicant had succeeded, as the rightful owner of it, and on account of the actions brought directly by the current occupier and those which it had implicitly prompted. The Court was therefore required to determine whether the interference complained of was justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court noted that a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could be justified only if it was shown to have taken place in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. Moreover, any interference also had to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The requisite balance would not be struck where the person concerned bore an individual and excessive burden. The Court could find no justification for the situation in which the public authorities had placed the applicant. It could not discern in the present case any “public interest” capable of justifying a deprivation of possessions.   The Court stressed that where an issue in the general interest was at stake it was incumbent on the public authorities to act in an appropriate manner and with utmost consistency. In addition, the State, as the guardian of public order, had a moral obligation to lead by example and it had a duty to ensure that its organs charged with the protection of public order enforced observance of that obligation. In the present case, the Court considered that the fair balance mentioned above had not been struck and that the applicant had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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. [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.   [2] .     Judge elected in respect of San Marino. [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.