CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 27 janvier 2004

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   037 27.01.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON MERITS IN THE CASE OF HUTTEN-CZAPSKA v. POLAND   Tuesday 27 January at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application (no. 35014/97) brought by a French national of Polish origin, Maria Hutten-Czapska, who was born in 1931 and lives in Andresy, France   Summary of the facts   The application concerns the scheme of rent control in Poland. The scheme, which originated in laws adopted under the former communist regime, imposes a number of restrictions on landlords’ rights. Those restrictions consist in, for instance, the impossibility of raising rents to cover expenses incurred by landlords in connection with the maintenance of property above a certain level determined by law.   The applicant owns a house and a plot of land in Gdynia, Poland. The house was built in 1936 as a family home and originally consisted of a duplex apartment, a basement and attic.   During the Second World War, German Army officers lived in the house and, in May 1945, Red Army officers took possession. On 19 May 1945 the first-floor part of the duplex apartment was assigned to A.Z. In June 1945 Gdynia Town Court ( Sąd Grodzki ) ordered that the house be returned to the applicant’s parents. They began renovation of the house but, shortly afterwards, were ordered to leave. In October   1945 A.Z. moved into the house.   The house was taken under state management after the entering into force, on 13 February 1946, of a decree giving the Polish authorities power to assign flats in privately-owned buildings to particular tenants. The applicant’s parents tried unsuccessfully to regain possession of their property.   On 1 August 1974 a new regime on the state management of housing entered into force, the so-called “special lease scheme” ( szczególny tryb najmu ).   On 8 July 1975 the Gdynia Mayor issued a decision allowing W.P. to exchange the flat he leased under this scheme for the ground-floor flat in the applicant’s house. The decision was signed by a civil servant who was subordinate to W.P.   In the 1990s the applicant tried to have that decision declared null and void but only succeeded in obtaining a decision declaring that it had been issued contrary to the law.   On 2 January 1976 the house was again taken under state management ( przejęcie w zarząd państwowy ). On 3 August 1988 Gdynia District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ruled that, after the death of A.Z., her daughter and son-in-law had inherited the right to lease the first-floor flat in the applicant’s house.   On 18 September 1990 the court declared that the applicant had inherited her parents’ property and, in October, she took over the management of the house.   In 1991 W.P. filed an action for repossession against the applicant and, on 28 April 1992, the applicant was ordered to surrender to W.P. possession of the basement, boiler-room, laundry and drying room.   The applicant subsequently brought several unsuccessful sets of proceedings – civil and administrative – to regain possession of her property and to relocate the tenants.   The Polish Constitutional Court, in three successive judgments (of 12 January 2000, 10 October 2000 and 2 October 2002), declared the legal provisions that reduced any possibility of raising “controlled rent” to cover the necessary expenses for the maintenance of property incompatible with the constitutional principle of the protection of property rights. However, new legislation dealing with the matter has not yet been enacted.   Complaint   The applicant complains that the situation created by the implementation of the laws imposing the fixed and totally inadequate rent amounts to a continuing violation of her property rights. She submits that she has neither been able to regain possession and use of her property nor derive any income from it. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   In view of the growing number of similar applications against Poland, the case has been considered the “pilot case” for the purposes of establishing whether the impugned system of rent control is compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 December 1994 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Subsequently, Lech Garlicki, the judge elected in respect of Poland, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Viera   Strážnicka, the judge elected in respect of the Slovak Republic, to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1).   The case was declared admissible on 16 September 2003.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) [1] , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish) , substitute judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Jakub Wołąsiewicz , Agent , Lucjan Łukasik , Antoni Bojańczyk , Advisers   ;   Applicant :   Bartłomiej Sochański , Counsel , Piotr Paszkowski , Adviser.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A judgment will be delivered at a later date. ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. 1.     Judge appointed to sit in respect of Poland