FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 6992\/11
\nJoanna BELLER
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
KsenijaTurkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 January 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Ms Joanna Beller, was a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lived in Warsaw. She was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0J.\u00a0Forystek, a lawyer practising in Cracow.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Ms Joanna Beller died on 30 November 2012.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 August 2015, her son, Mr Robert Beller, obtained a judicial decision to the effect that he was her legal successor in respect of one-third of her estate.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agents, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s father had owned the so-called \u201cCracow Bishops\u2019 Palace\u201d together with a plot of land situated in the centre of Warsaw. By virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (dekret o w\u0142asno\u015bciiu\u017cytkowaniugrunt\u00f3wnaobszarze m. st.Warszawy), the Warsaw municipal authority became the owner of all plots of land located in Warsaw.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In 1948 the applicant\u2019s father applied for the right of temporary ownership of the plot of land formerly owned by him. His request was refused by a decision issued in 1949 (\u201cthe 1949 decision\u201d).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 March 1990 the applicant, as the sole heir to her father\u2019s property, filed a petition with the Warsaw \u015ar\u00f3dmie\u015bcie District Office in which she requested the restitution of her property. The case was subsequently examined by various authorities, including the administrative courts.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 August 1997 the Warsaw Governor declared the 1949 decision null and void.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, on 12 November 1997 the head of the Warsaw District Office gave a decision in respect of the application lodged by the applicant\u2019s father in 1948. He granted the applicant perpetual use of the land and declared that she retained ownership of the building located thereon.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 February 2005 the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of excessive length of the administrative proceedings (see Beller v. Poland, no. 51837\/99, \u00a7 71, 1 February 2005).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings relating to the right of perpetual use<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 December 2001 the\u00a0President of the Housing and Urban Development Office (PrezesUrz\u0119duMieszkalnictwaiRozwojuMiast)\u00a0declared the decision of 25 August 1997 null and void. Following a number of appeals, the decision of 13 December 2001 was upheld by a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on 13 April 2005.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In a decision of 14 July 2009 the Mazowsze Governor discontinued appellate proceedings brought in respect of the decision of 12\u00a0November\u00a01997 (see paragraph\u00a09 above) by the Social Insurance Institution, which had its seat in a building situated on the plot of land in question.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 December 2009 the Warsaw Administrative Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the institution against the Governor\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 July 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the prosecuting authorities and the Social Insurance Institution.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0First set of proceedings seeking to have the 1997 decision declared null and void<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On an unknown date in 2010 the Warsaw Governor instituted of its own motion proceedings seeking to have the decision of 12 November 1997 declared null and void (post\u0119powanienadzorcze). Two decisions were given in the course of those proceedings. Each of them was subsequently declared unlawful by the Minister of Construction.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 November 2012 the Warsaw Governor ultimately discontinued those proceedings, considering that they had become devoid of purpose.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Second set of proceedings seeking to have the 1997 decision declared null and void<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 May 2015 the Warsaw Governor again instituted of its own motion proceedings (post\u0119powanienadzorcze) seeking to have the decision of 12\u00a0November 1997 declared null and void.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 November 2016 the Warsaw Governor declared the decision of 12\u00a0November\u00a01997 null and void. The Governor noted that the building complex on the plot of land in question was also partially situated on adjacent plots. Therefore, the decision of 12\u00a0November\u00a01997 could not have been executed. In addition, the Governor held that the decision of 25\u00a0August\u00a01997, which had preceded the decision in question, had been declared null and void (see paragraph 11 above).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 March 2018 the Minister of Investment and Development (Minister InwestycjiiRozwoju) upheld the first-instance decision.\u00a0The minister relied on the fact that the building complex was situated on several plots, not only those that had previously belonged to the applicant\u2019s legal predecessor, and that as it had not been possible to divide the building, the 1997 decision could not have been executed.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal lodged by Mr Beller, the proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Other proceedings<\/em><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On an unknown date Mr Robert Beller and two other heirs of the former owner of the property in question instituted civil proceedings against the Social Insurance Institution, which has its seat in the building, seeking recovery of that building and remuneration for its non-contractual use.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 February 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment and granted the plaintiffs\u2019 claim in part. It awarded Mr\u00a0Beller 18,587,839.97\u00a0Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 4,426,000 euros (EUR)) as compensation for the non-contractual use of the building. The court further held that it could not decide on the remainder of the plaintiffs\u2019 claim (for recovery of the building) in view of the Warsaw Governor\u2019s decision of 30\u00a0November 2016 (see paragraph 18 above).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Following an appeal lodged by the defendant, the proceedings are pending.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the excessive length of the administrative proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0She further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decision of 12 November 1997\u00a0conferring on her a property right remained unenforced and that various measures had been applied in order to prevent her from exercising her property rights.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Standing of Mr Robert Beller<\/strong><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that the applicant died after the introduction of the application and that her son, Mr Robert Beller, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application introduced by his late mother. Mr\u00a0Beller submitted a judicial decision to the effect that he was the applicant\u2019s heir in respect of one-third of her estate (see paragraph 2 above).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Government did not object to the wish expressed by the applicant\u2019s son to pursue the application.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has accepted on a number of occasions that close relatives of a deceased applicant may be entitled to take his or her place (see,\u00a0inter\u00a0alia, Goc v. Poland (dec.), no. 48001\/99, 23 October 2001). In the present case, the Court accepts that the applicant\u2019s son can pursue the application in his late mother\u2019s stead.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 May 2018 and 4 July 2018 the Court received friendly\u2011settlement declarations signed by the Government and Mr Beller. Under these declarations, Mr Beller agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the length of the administrative proceedings against an undertaking by the Government to pay him PLN 25,000 (twenty-five thousand Polish zlotys) covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. That sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0In the event of failure to pay that sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in respect of the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its protocols. The Court finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of this part of the application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine of the Convention).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list of cases, in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention that the decision of 12 November 1997, which had conferred property rights on her, had remained unenforced. Subsequently, Mr Beller submitted that the authorities had instituted of their own motion, and at the request of the defending party, proceedings seeking to have that decision declared null and void.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government maintained that the decision of 12 November\u00a01997 had been declared null and void by administrative authorities at two levels and that an appeal was pending before the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. Therefore in their view the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention was premature.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that on 12 November 1997 the head of the Warsaw District Office granted the applicant perpetual use of the land in question and declared that she had retained ownership of the building located thereon (see paragraph 9 above). That decision was finally upheld on appeal on 29 July 2010 (see paragraph 14 above).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0However, proceedings seeking to have that decision declared null and void were subsequently instituted. The Court observes that on 30\u00a0November 2016 and 30 March 2018 respectively, the Mazowsze Governor and the Minister of Investment and Development declared the decision of 12 November 1997 null and void (see paragraphs 18 and\u00a019above). It further notes that the proceedings relevant for the determination of the applicant\u2019s claim have not yet been terminated and that a further appeal is currently pending before the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (see paragraph\u00a020 above).<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, in so far as the applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it would be premature to take a position on the substance of this complaint.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.<\/p>\n RenataDegener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 KsenijaTurkovi\u0107
\nDeputyRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n