FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF BUKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
\n(Application no. 47395\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Bukowski and Others v. Poland,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Ksenija Turkovi\u0107,President, andAbel Campos, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 13 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 47395\/09) against the Republic of Poland, lodged with the Court on 13 August 2009 under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Polish nationals, Mr\u00a0Eugeniusz Bukowski (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d), Ms Gra\u017cynaZmys\u0142owska (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d) and Ms\u00a0JolantaBarszcz (\u201cthe third applicant\u201d).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were initially represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wo\u0142\u0105siewicz, subsequently by Ms\u00a0J.\u00a0Chrzanowska,and later by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 April 2011 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings for the right of perpetual use was communicated to the Government under Article 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant, Mr Eugeniusz Bukowski, the second applicant, Ms\u00a0Gra\u017cynaZmys\u0142owska, and the third applicant, Ms JolantaBarszcz, were born in 1931, in 1960 and 1959 respectively and live in Warsaw.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The property in Warsaw which gives rise to the present application (two adjacent plots of land with a detached house situated on it) was originally co-owned by the applicants\u2019 predecessors, the D. family and the K. family.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The land and the building in question fell under the Decree of 26\u00a0October 1945 on Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw by virtue of which the Warsaw Municipality (and after 1950, the State Treasury) became the owner of all plots of land located in Warsaw. Due to subsequent amendments of law, on 6 January 1992 (\u201cthe 1992 decision\u201d) the land in question was transferred ex lege to the Warsaw Municipality.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0According to a further donation contract, a sale contract and the rules on inheritance, since 1998 the rights and claims to the land and the building have belonged in 3\/6 to the third applicant, in 2\/6 to the second applicant and in 1\/6\u00a0to the first applicant.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0First set of the proceedings (the right of ownership and the right of perpetual use)<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June 1988 the third applicant filed with the Mayor of Warsaw an application for restitution of the right of ownership of the building and the land in question pursuant to the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 29 April 1985 (Ustawa o gospodarcegruntamiiwyw\u0142aszczaniunieruchomo\u015bci). On 12 September 1996 the first applicant and on 25\u00a0February 1998 the second applicant joined the proceedings.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0In a decision of 3 January 2005 the Mayor of Warsaw noted that on 1\u00a0January 1998 the new Land Administration Act of 21 August 1997 had entered into force. Pursuant to section 214 of that act restitution of the right of ownership of the land was not possible. The former owners whose property had been taken over by the State and whose claims for restoration had expired were only entitled to apply for perpetual use of the land. Consequently, the Mayor granted the applicants the right of perpetual use of the land and declared that they retained the ownership of the building located thereon.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 January 2005 the applicants applied to have this decision amended and the ownership of the land restored.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 June 2005 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for re-examination.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 November 2005 the Mayor of Warsaw issued a decision, granting the applicants the right of perpetual use of the land. The Mayor decided to return the ownership of the building to the applicants and decided on the annual amount of fees to be paid for the perpetual use of the land.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 December 2005 the applicants appealed against this decision objecting to the amount of fees.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 December 2007 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision of 21\u00a0November 2005 (see paragraph 13 above) and remitted the case for re-examination.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 October 2008 the applicants lodged with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0By a judgment of 28 January 2009 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court obliged the Mayor of Warsaw to issue a decision within four weeks.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 June 2009 the Mayor of Warsaw issued a new decision, granting the applicants a right of perpetual use of the land and the ownership of the house. It further fixed the amount of annual fees to be paid for the perpetual use of land.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Second set of the proceedings (amount of fees for the perpetual use of land)<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 June 2009 the applicants applied to the Warsaw Self\u2011Government Board of Appeal contesting the amount of fees for the perpetual use of land.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 November 2009 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal upheld the impugned decision.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 November 2009 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. On 1 June 2010 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court rejected their appeal as lodged out of time. However, subsequently, it granted them leave to appeal out of time.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 January 2011 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, which was dismissed on 9 August 2012.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 May 2013 the applicants signed a notarial deed by virtue of which they acquired the ownership of the building and a right of perpetual use of the land.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Third set of the proceedings (a request to declare the 1992 decision null and void)<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 April 2010 the applicants filed an application to declare the 1992 decision (see paragraph7 above) null and void.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 February 2011 the Minister of the Interior refused to declare the 1992 decision null and void.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, on various dates, the applicants applied to have the case re-examined.Following several remittals on 12 February 2013 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Courtrefused the applicants\u2019 request.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 March 2013 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. However, they have failed to submit any information about the further course of the proceedings.<\/p>\n
\nKrzysztofWojtyczek,
\nPauliineKoskelo,judges,<\/p>\n