Communicated on 14 March 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 55853\/15
\nEwa SIDOR
\nagainst Poland
\nlodged on 2 November 2015<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Ms EwaSidor, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Lublin.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0First expropriation proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and her husband were owners of plots of land in Lublin, which were designated in the local development plan of 17 March 2005 for construction of an express road (plots nos. 1005\/3, with a house located on it, and 1005\/4) and a district road (plots nos. 1005\/5 and 1005\/6).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 October 2005 the Lubelski Region Governor issued a decision about the location of the express road on the applicant\u2019s property, on the basis of the National Roads (Special Rules of Preparation and Implementation of Investment) Act of 10 April 2003 (hereinafter \u201cthe Roads Act\u201d).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with the Act the amount of compensation for expropriated property was determined according to the state of the property on the date of issuing the decision.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In 2008 the negotiation in respect of the acquisition of the applicant\u2019s property by the General Agency of Public Roads and Motorways (\u201cthe Agency\u201d) commenced. However, the applicant and the Agency failed to reach an agreement regarding the price. The applicant questioned the expert opinion in respect of the surface area of her house and its value.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 March 2009 the applicant complained of the inactivity of the Agency regarding the negotiation and requested that an offer be made.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 April 2009 the Agency informed the applicant that negotiations were carried out on the basis of the provisions of the Civil Code and therefore the parties to negotiations were not bound by any time-limits.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 December 2010 the Agency applied to the Governor for institution of the expropriation proceedings.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 January 2011 the Governor instituted expropriation proceedings in respect of plots nos. 1005\/3 and 1005\/4.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 May 2011 the Agency applied to the Governor for discontinuation of the expropriation proceedings.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 May 2011 Governor discontinued the proceedings and his decision was upheld on 26 September 2011 by the decision of the Minister of Infrastructure. The administrative authorities held that the proceedings had been initiated on the motion of the Agency and that following its withdrawal the proceedings had become devoid of purpose.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 May 2012 Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal. On 13 August 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Regional Court\u2019s decision, finding that the application for discontinuation of the proceedings had been signed by an employee who had not had the proper authorisation to represent the Agency. On 9 January 2014 the case was returned to the Governor for reconsideration. The proceedings appear to be pending.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Second expropriation proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2011 Director of the Agency applied to the Lubelski Region Governor for a decision authorising the implementation of the road investment (\u201cthe ZRID decision\u201d). This decision given on the basis of the 2008 amendment to the Roads Act replaced several separate administrative procedures and determined in one administrative act the location of the road, the surveying division, construction design and also resulted in the acquisition of a real property by virtue of the Law by the State Treasury.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 December 2011 the Governor issued the requested decision with a clause of immediate enforceability. The decision concerned, inter alia, the applicant\u2019s plots nos. 1005\/3, 1005\/4, 1005\/5 and 1005\/6.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 April 2012 the Governor offered the applicant temporary accommodation in a flat located in Lublin; however the applicant objected to the offer. She submitted that the accommodation in a flat did not meet the standard of their house and that it did not provide them with sufficient space.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 April 2012 the applicant and her husband were evicted from their property. Eventually, the applicant rented a house and unsuccessfully applied to the Agency for reimbursement of the rent.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 May 2012 the Minister partly amended the Governor\u2019s decision of 5 December 2011.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 January 2013 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court annulled the ministerial decision of 31 May 2012 and returned the case to the Minister for reconsideration.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 February 2014 the Minister again partly amended the Governor\u2019s decision of 5 December 2011 in respect of certain plots but maintained the decision in respect of the applicant\u2019s property.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 September 2014 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. On 15 April 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. The domestic courts found that the authorities had taken into account the public interest, environmental requirements, the protection of the interests of third parties; that the authorities had analysed the alternative plans in respect of the road and had chosen the best option from an environmental and economic point of view; and that the applicant had been granted adequate compensation. The domestic courts held that the public road investment had been in accordance with the law. Moreover, the courts \u2013 referring to the applicant arguments \u2013 held that the Minister had not breached the principle of res judicata as the subject matter of the decision of 7 February 2014 had not been the same as the subject matter of the decision of 3 October 2005.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 August 2012 the applicant complained about the inactivity of the Governor in respect of compensation for his land acquired by the Agency by virtue of the decision of 5 December 2011.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 October 2012 the Lubelski Region Governor fixed the amount of compensation at 1,086,000 Polish zlotys (271,500 euros). The applicant contested as to low the valuation of her property made by an expert commissioned by the Governor and alleged that the Governor had failed to take into consideration a valuation made by another expert.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 November 2012 Minister found the complaint of 16 August 2012 unjustified.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 February 2013 the Minister upheld the Governor\u2019s decision. On 18 March 2013 the applicant received compensation however, she challenged the amount of compensation before the administrative courts.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 December 2013 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court annulled the ministerial decisions. On 10 February 2014 the Minister lodged a cassation appeal.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the excessive length of proceedings.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal by the Minister, on 9 December 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Warsaw Administrative Court\u2019s judgment of 18 December 2013 and dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 April 2003 the National Roads (Special Rules of Preparation and Implementation of Investment) Act was enacted. It entered into force on 25 May 2003. It has been amended several times since.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Section 18(1) of the Roads Act provided that the amount of compensation for expropriated property was determined according to its state on the date of issuing the decision authorising the location of a road investment and its market value established on the date of the expropriation decision<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 September 2008 the amendment to the Roads Act, came into force. The main change was the introduction of a new type of decision authorising the execution of road investment (\u201cthe ZRID decision\u201d).<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The amended section 12(4b) of the Roads Act provided that a decision granting compensation for expropriated property should be issued within thirty days of the date on which the ZRID decision became final.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The amended section 18(1) of the Roads Act provided that the amount of compensation for expropriated property was determined according to its state on the date of issuing of the ZRID decision and its current market value established on the date of the compensation decision.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that after the issuance of the decision on the location of the road on 3 October 2005 she was not able to develop her property and no compensation was granted to her in this connection. In her view, the length of the expropriation proceedings and the restrictions on the use of her land had amounted to an unjustified infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions or a control of the use of her property, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0If so, did that interference or control of use comply with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?<\/p>\n Reference is made to:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0the delay between the date of the decision on the location of the public road (3 October 2005) and the dates of decisions given in respect of the expropriation of the applicant\u2019s property and compensation for it.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0restrictions on the applicant\u2019s right to her property following the decision of 3 October 2005.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0section 18(1) of the Roads Act of 10 April 2003 determining an amount of compensation for expropriated property according to the state of the property on the date of issuing the decision in respect of the location of the public road (3 October 2005), regardless of the date of expropriation decision.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0In particular, was an excessive individual burden imposed on the applicant (see ImmobiliareSaffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774\/93, \u00a7 59, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011V)?<\/p>\n