BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZARZAD WSPOLNOTY GRUNTOWEJ LOMZYCA v Poland - 32037/02 [2010] ECHR 466 (16 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/466.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 466 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
32037/02
by ZARZĄD WSPÓLNOTY GRUNTOWEJ ŁOMŻYCA
against
Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2002,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 3 June 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Zarząd Wspólnoty Gruntowej “Łomżyca”, is a farmers’ association registered in Poland. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In July 1989 the State Treasury expropriated the property of the applicant association. On 1 August 1989 the Łomża City Board adopted a decision fixing the amount of compensation for a part of the entire property. The decision became final.
On 15 March 1994 the applicant’s representative applied for a determination of the compensation payable in respect of the remaining part of the property.
On 19 December 1994 the Łomża County Office assessed the compensation payable for the remaining plots. Following the parties’ complaint the decision was quashed by the Łomża Governor and subsequently the case was twice remitted for reconsideration.
A decision regarding the compensation was delivered by the Łomża County Office on 15 July 1997. The amount of the compensation was fixed on the basis of an assessment made by an expert and it reflected the value of the property at the time of the delivery of the decision. On 12 December 1997 the Łomża Governor quashed the decision and fixed the compensation in a significantly higher amount. The decision was challenged by both parties.
On 6 August 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed both complaints. However, following an extraordinary revision, on 7 July 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Supreme Administrative Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court reasoned that the party liable to pay the compensation was the State Treasury and not the Łomża City Board.
Subsequently, on 23 November 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 12 December 1999 and 15 July 1997. The court reiterated that it was the State Treasury which was liable to pay the compensation.
Eventually, by virtue of a decision of 4 June 2001, the Łomża Mayor determined the amount of compensation and held the State Treasury liable to pay it.
The applicant challenged the decision and on 31 August 2001 the Podlaski Governor quashed it and determined the compensation in a higher amount. The applicant applied for judicial review. On 14 February 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request stating that the amount of the compensation had been calculated in accordance with the domestic law and had reflected the value of the expropriated property.
On 24 December 2002 the compensation was paid to the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
By letter dated 3 June 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“ The Government hereby wish to express - by way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgment of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings. The Government are prepared to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 10 000 as just satisfaction.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be fee of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
...
The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
...”
In a letter of 3 July 2009 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1(c).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
B. Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the compensation for his expropriated property had been calculated in an improper manner and was too low.
The Court reiterates that compensation terms under the relevant legislation are material to the assessment of whether the contested measure respects the requisite fair balance and, notably, whether it does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant. However, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. does not guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances, since legitimate objectives of “public interest” may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value (see, among other authorities, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 48, ECHR 1999-II). If, however, the compensation bears no reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated land, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-II, and Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 57, ECHR 2001-I).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds no indication that the criteria to be used for estimating the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant were established arbitrarily. Bearing in mind the wide margin of appreciation which Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 affords to national authorities, the Court notes that the domestic authorities calculated the compensation in accordance with the domestic law, in an amount reflecting the market value of the property. Moreover, the expropriation proceedings viewed as a whole afforded the applicant a reasonable opportunity for putting the case to the competent authorities with a view to establishing a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake.
Having regard to the above-mentioned circumstances, the Court considers that the complaint raised by the applicant is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President