Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Pecuniary damage suffered from violation of Art 1 P1 on account of the delay in payment of compensation for expropriation • Claim not premature despite separate domestic proceedings still pending regarding the amount of interest due to the applicants • Expropriation having occurred 25 years ago, unreasonable to wait for the outcome of those proceedings • No risk of double award • Award
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Ksenija Turković, President, ��������� Krzysztof Wojtyczek, ��������� Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, ��������� Ale� Pejchal, ��������� Armen Harutyunyan, ��������� Tim Eicke, ��������� Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
The case originated in two applications (nos 49725/11 and 79950/11) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by three Polish nationals, Mr Krzysztof Wcisło (no. 49725/11 - �the first application�) and Ms Elżbieta Cabaj and Mr Jerzy Cabaj (no. 79950/13 - �the second application�) (�the applicants�). The applications were lodged on 27 July 2011 and 8 December 2013 respectively.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.