1. Facts prior to 10 October 1994
2. Facts after 10 October 1994
3. Compensation proceedings
On 18 June 2001 an expert opinion was submitted, assessing the physical damage to the applicant's house and garage at 22,976 Polish zlotys (PLN) and the value of construction materials which the applicant had bought for the purposes of general renovation but had not used at PLN 5,859. On an unspecified later date the applicant limited her claim to the damage suffered as a result of the 1979 construction works, the deterioration of the buildings and the waste of building materials.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Changes in land planning legislation
35. On 7 July 1994 a new Local Planning Act (ustawa o zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym) was enacted. It entered into force on 1 January 1995.
B. Relevant provisions of the land expropriation legislation
“(1) an indication of the property to be expropriated, ...
(3) an indication of the party upon whose initiative the property is being expropriated,
(4) an assessment of the amount of compensation,
(5) identification of the persons (name, surname and address) entitled to compensation,
(6) detailed factual and legal grounds,
(7) instructions on appeal procedures.”
C. Compensation entitlements of owners to be expropriated in the future
On 21 December 2001 Parliament passed a law amending the Local Planning Act 1994 which extended until the end of 2002 the validity of the land development plans adopted before 1 January 1995.
D. Management of publicly owned property
“The State Treasury takes over:
3) obligations and receivables of local bodies of state administration (...) resulting from final and binding court rulings and administrative decisions delivered before 27 May 1990 (...).”
E. Resolution and judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court concerning the legal capacity to be sued in cases concerning civil liability of the State
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
1. Incompatibility ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention
62. The Government submitted that the alleged violation of the applicant's rights had originated in the 1977 decision to institute expropriation proceedings concerning her property. The works referred to in her application had been carried out in 1979. The application was therefore incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention because the alleged violation had taken place before 10 October 1994, the date on which Poland ratified Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
63. The applicant disagreed. She argued that in the context of a continuing violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions the events that had taken place before the date of ratification should be taken into account as a relevant background for the assessment of the facts of the case. In her case the 1977 decision announcing the future expropriation had been the root cause of all the subsequent developments. Moreover, in her case most of the facts which should be regarded as giving rise to further breaches of her right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had occurred after 10 October 1994.
2. Incompatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention
3. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
4. Conclusion as to the admissibility
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
2. General principles
“The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest ... The three rules are not, however, 'distinct' in the sense of being unconnected. The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule.”
3. The Court's assessment
Nonetheless, the applicant's claim for damages ultimately failed because, in the view of that court, the applicant had erred by identifying the wrong defendant.
The Court attaches importance to the fact that the applicant's efforts to secure compensation seem to have been thwarted by the cumulative effects of the passage of time, the successive administrative reforms, the inconsistency of the case-law regarding the taking over of the civil liability of the State Treasury and the lack of legal certainty and coherence in this respect. As a result, not only did she not have a right to compensation for restrictions flowing from the proceedings instituted with a view to the future expropriation, which was, in the Court's view and in the light of its established case-law, sufficient by itself for finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraph 44 above), but also her efforts to obtain compensation in tort for the long-term effects of the undisputed physical damage caused to her property by a State owned enterprise in the context of the planned expropriation were frustrated.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
(i) PLN 20,003 in respect of the decrease in value of the building caused by lack of general renovation;
(ii) PLN 2,972 in respect of reimbursement of the cost of repairing the garage situated on the property;
(iii) PLN 5,895 in respect of reimbursement of the cost of building materials purchased by the applicant with a view to a general renovation.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
C. Costs and expenses
D. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,870 (five thousand eight hundred and seventy euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
