FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 20177\/13
\nIzabela Julia Emilia CH\u0141APOWSKA-TRZECIAK
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nJovan Ilievski, judges,
\nand Abel Campos, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2013,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Ms Izabela Julia Emilia Ch\u0142apowska-Trzeciak, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Warsaw. She was represented before the Court by Mr. R.\u00a0Darabasz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.<\/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\u00a0Background to the case<\/em><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0 In 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) issued two decrees relating to nationalisation of agricultural land and forests (\u201cthe 1944 decrees\u201d): the Decree on agrarian reform of 6 September 1944 (dekret o reformie rolnej) (\u201cthe agrarian decree\u201d) and the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests of 12\u00a0December 1944 (dekret o przej\u0119ciu niekt\u00f3rych las\u00f3w na w\u0142asno\u015b\u0107 Skarbu Pa\u0144stwa) (\u201cthe forest decree\u201d) (see paragraphs 48-51 below).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Before the Second World War the applicant\u2019s parents, Z. and C. Ch., were the owners of three estates: Stawiany, Paw\u0142owo Skockie and Ciesle. Each estate included a park, a palace complex, farmland and forests. In\u00a01946 the property was taken over by the State Treasury pursuant to the provisions of the 1944 decrees.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for annulment of the expropriation measure<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 October 2007 the applicant asked the Wielkopolski Governor (Wojewoda Wielkopolski) to decide that the Stawiany, Paw\u0142owo Skockie and Cie\u015ble estates had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Following a number of administrative decisions and appeals, the proceedings were eventually discontinued by the decisions of the Wielkopolski Governor of 24 March, 8 April, 21 April and 30 April 2010. The governor considered that the issue of whether or not the estates had fallen within the scope of agrarian decree should be examined by the civil courts.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s attempts to recover the property and\/or to obtain compensation<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie estates<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On an unknown date in February 2009 the applicant lodged a\u00a0statement of claim with the Poznan Regional Court seeking compensation for the allegedly unlawful nationalisation of her father\u2019s property (estates\u00a0Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 February 2011 the claims relating to compensation for forest land were severed to separate sets of proceedings (see paragraphs 13-16 and 17-20 below).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 23\u00a0May 2011 the Poznan Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim. The court held that even if it were for a civil court to decide whether or not the property in question had fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree, the present claim was in any event time-barred. The basis for the applicant\u2019s claim was the Law of 15\u00a0November 1956 on the State\u2019s liability for damage caused by public servants (Ustawa o odpowiedzialno\u015bci Skarbu Pa\u0144stwa za szkody wyrz\u0105dzone przez Funkcjonariusz\u00f3w pa\u0144stwowych) (\u201cthe 1956 Act\u201d). The\u00a0court confirmed that while, until at least 4 June 1989, that is the fall of the communist regime, claims for compensation could not have been effectively vindicated, there were no obstacles to pursuing such claims after that date. Nevertheless, the applicant had lodged her application with the Wielkopolski Governor only in 2007 (see paragraph 5 above). She had further lodged a claim with a civil court in 2009. Even assuming that a\u00a0ten\u2011year prescription time-limit was applicable to the present proceedings, the applicant\u2019s claims had become time-barred on 4\u00a0June\u00a01999. For that reason the court refrained from examining whether or not the Paw\u0142owo Skockie and Stawiany estates had fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 December 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal upheld the first\u2011instance judgment. The court endorsed the findings of the Regional Court. It confirmed that, in principle, it was for the administrative authorities to decide whether or not the property in question had fallen within the scope of the 1944 decrees. However, according to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 6\u00a0October\u00a02010 (II CSK 174\/10), when there was no such administrative decision, a civil court could not avoid deciding the matter. However, the applicant had only generally questioned the legality of the agrarian decree. In that respect the court found that the applicant\u2019s claims were not clearly set out. She had initially asked for restitution of the property in question but eventually confirmed that her claim had concerned only compensation. In the court\u2019s view the applicant had failed to specify clearly the legal and factual grounds for her compensation claims. For that reasons her claim had to be dismissed.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 January 2013 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s subsequent attempts to reopen the proceedings were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Paw\u0142owo Skockie forests<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The claim for compensation for the nationalisation of forest land belonging to the Paw\u0142owo Skockie estate was severed from the main set of proceedings on 2 February 2011 (see paragraph 8 above). In her pleadings the applicant relied on Article 417 of the Civil Code and section 7 of the Act of 6 July 2001 on the preservation of the national character of the country\u2019s strategic natural resources (ustawa o zachowaniu narodowego charakteru strategicznych zasob\u00f3w naturalnych kraju \u2013 \u201c2001 Act\u201d) (see paragraph 54\u00a0below).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 May 2011 the Poznan Regional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim. The court held that section 7 of the 2001 Act was of a very general nature and could not constitute the basis for a compensation claim. It further considered that the plaintiff\u2019s liability could only be based on the 1956 Act. However, relying on the same grounds as set out in the judgment given in the case relating to the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie estates (see paragraph 9 above), the court concluded that the applicant\u2019s claims had become time-barred on 4\u00a0June\u00a01999.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 October 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal and endorsed the findings of the Regional Court. The\u00a0court held that the 1944 decrees were binding legal acts. Pursuant to these decrees, ownership of land was transferred to the State Treasury ex\u00a0lege. In view of the surface area of the Paw\u0142owo Skockie estate, it was nationalised pursuant to section 2 \u00a7 1 (e) of the agrarian decree. The forest land was also taken over by the State in accordance with the law. The relevant entry in the land register had been made in 1946 and was of a\u00a0declaratory character. The applicant could only have based her claim on the 1956 Act. However, she had failed to demonstrate that the nationalisation of the property in question was unlawful.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 November 2012 the Supreme Court refused to admit the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0Stawiany forests<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 January 2010 the applicant lodged a statement of claim for compensation against the State Treasury \u2013 Durowo Forest Inspectorate for allegedly unlawful nationalisation of forest land belonging to the Stawiany estate. She further modified her claim and sought restitution of the forest in question or alternatively payment of compensation.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 December 2011 the Poznan Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed her claim. In its reasoning the Regional Court made note of the following points. The 1944 decrees had been binding legal acts. Under section 2 \u00a7 1 (e) of the agrarian decree and section 1 \u00a7 3 (b) of the forest decree, ownership of land was transferred to the State Treasury ex lege.\u00a0Due to its size, the Stawiany estate was nationalised under section 2\u00a0\u00a7 1 (e) of the agrarian decree. It was clear that the forest land which had belonged to that estate had also been taken over by the State in accordance with the law. The relevant entry in the land register had been made in 1946 and was of a\u00a0declaratory character. The legal situation disclosed in the land register was in line with the property\u2019s actual legal status and thus justified dismissing the claim for restitution of land.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The court further explained that for various reasons the plaintiff could not have based her compensation claim on the provisions of the Constitution or any other legal acts. Since the applicant had based her claim on the State\u2019s liability in tort, the relevant provisions applicable to her situation were the provisions of the 1956 Act. However, pursuant to these regulations, the applicant had to demonstrate that she had suffered damage on account of unlawful action of public officials and that the forest land of the Stawiany estate had been taken over unlawfully. In the court\u2019s view, the applicant had failed to prove that the expropriation of the forest land in question had been unlawful.\u00a0\u00a0It concluded that, even assuming that the applicant had had any claim for compensation, such claim in any event had become time-barred on 4 June 1999.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 July 2012 the Pozna\u0144 Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim and fully endorsed the Regional Court\u2019s findings. It\u00a0concluded that there was no unlawful action on the part of the public officials in the process of taking over the forest land belonging to the Stawiany estate and consequently no State liability in tort had arisen in the present case.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 September 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal. The court confirmed that the forest land belonging to the Stawiany estate had been taken over in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1944 Decrees. It further reiterated that the 1944 Decrees had not provided for payment of any compensation for nationalised property. Therefore, the courts of first and second instance had correctly held that the applicant did not have any claim for compensation. The Supreme Court concluded that any findings about the prescription of time\u2011limits were groundless, since a claim that had not arisen could not become time-barred.<\/p>\n (d)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for amending the land register (Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie forests)<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On an unknown date in 2012 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury with the W\u0105growiec District Court. She requested that steps be taken by that court to put right the discrepancies between the entry in the land register and the actual ownership of the plots (pow\u00f3dztwo o uzgodnienie ksi\u00e7gi wieczystej z rzeczywistym stanem prawnym). She\u00a0referred to the forest land which had previously belonged to the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie estates.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 October 2012 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 July 2013 the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case. The court noted that the District Court had failed to establish whether the forests belonging to the Paw\u0142owo Skockie and Stawiany estates could have been taken over by the State pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 November 2013 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, the applicant asked the Wielkopolski Governor to declare that the forest land belonging to the Paw\u0142owo Skockie and Stawiany estates had not been taken over by the State pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree. On 29 May 2014 the Wielkopolski Governor gave a\u00a0decision and held that the forest land in question had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree. On 28 October 2014 the Minister of Agriculture upheld this decision. It further explained that the administrative authorities were only competent to declare whether the land had been taken over pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree. However, it was for the civil courts to determine whether it could have been taken over in accordance with the forest decree.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 April 2015 the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court stayed the appeal proceedings relating to the amendments in the land register.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant failed to submit any further information concerning this set of proceedings.<\/p>\n (e)\u00a0\u00a0Ciesle estate<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2008 the applicant lodged a statement of claim with the Poznan Regional Court seeking, inter alia, restitution of the Cie\u015ble estate, which had belonged to her father.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 July 2009 the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court dismissed her claim on the ground that she had not demonstrated that the Cie\u015ble estate had been taken over by the State unlawfully. The applicant\u2019s appeal was dismissed by the Poznan Court of Appeal on 3\u00a0December 2009. The court upheld the findings made by the Regional Court.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 October 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment. The court held, referring to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 1 March 2010 (P\u00a0107\/08) that when there was no administrative decision relating to whether an estate had fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree, a civil court should decide on the matter. The court also reiterated the well-established view of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court that, while the 1944 decrees were disgraceful, (niegodziwe) they had created permanent consequences in the area of property rights.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 January 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal quashed the Poznan Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 8 July 2009. The court held that the Regional Court had failed to establish whether the Cie\u015ble estate had fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 September 2011 the applicant had eventually specified her claim. She asked the Regional Court to give a declaratory judgment that the Cie\u015ble estate had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree. She had further requested restitution of the land belonging to the Cie\u015ble estate. Alternatively, if the court did not allow these claims, she asked for compensation from the State Treasury.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 January 2012 the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant\u2019s claims. The court reiterated the established case\u2011law of the domestic courts that the provisions of the agrarian decree had formed part of the legal order and therefore could have been a basis for the State to take over the property. The Cie\u015ble estate (the palace, park and farmland) had formed the so-called \u201cland property\u201d (nieruchomo\u015b\u0107 ziemska) for the purposes of the agrarian decree. In the court\u2019s view the palace and the surrounding park had functional and economic links with the farmland. Given the property\u2019s surface area, it had fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree. The estate had been taken over ex lege, without compensation, on the date of entry into force of the agrarian decree. There had been no need to issue an administrative decision on the matter. Consequently, since the State Treasury remained the owner of the estate, the applicant\u2019s claims for restitution and a declaratory judgment had to be dismissed.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0With regard to the applicant\u2019s claim for compensation, the court held that there was no need to examine the substantive grounds for any such claim, since in any event it had become time-barred on 31 December 1999 at the latest.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 May 2012 the Poznan Court of Appeal amended the first\u2011instance judgment. The court held that the palace and park belonging to the Cie\u015ble estate had not been taken over by the State pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree. It explained that the palace and the surrounding park had not had any functional and economic links with the farmland. Consequently, they had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court was further of the view that the applicant\u2019s claim for restitution could not be allowed since the property in question was managed by the Agricultural Property Agency (Agencja Nieruchomo\u015bci Rolnych), which had not been summoned to participate in the proceedings as a defendant.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the court noted that compensation claims could only be examined with respect to the part of the property that had been taken over by the State, despite the fact that it had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree. However, the applicant had meanwhile lodged a claim for amending the land register in accordance with the legal situation and she could still recover the property. Therefore, the present claim was premature.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The court also agreed with the findings made by the Regional Court with respect to prescription of the claim for compensation.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 October 2012 the Poznan Court of Appeal rejected the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal on procedural grounds. Her further interlocutory appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21\u00a0March\u00a02013.<\/p>\n (f)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for amending the land register (Ciesle)<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 October 2008 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury, statio fisci Regional Direction of Water Management in Pozna\u0144 (Regionalny Zarz\u0105d Gospodarki Wodnej w Poznaniu) and the Agricultural Property Agency, with the Grodzisko Wielkopolskie District Court. She requested that steps be taken by that court to put right the discrepancies between the entry in the land register and the actual ownership of the plot.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 March 2011 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 February 2013 the Poznan Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case. The court referred to the declaratory judgment given by the Poznan Court of Appeal on 24 May 2012 (see\u00a0paragraphs 36-39 above) in which it had been established that the palace and the park belonging to the Ciesle estate had not been taken over by the State pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 September 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant\u2019s interlocutory appeal.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 December 2015 the Grodzisko Wielkopolskie District Court discontinued the proceedings as meanwhile the applicant had withdrawn her statement of claim.<\/p>\n (g)\u00a0\u00a0Further developments<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 October 2015 the applicant informed the Agricultural Property Agency in Pozna\u0144 that she had intended to exercise her right of pre-emption in respect of part of the agricultural land which had belonged to the Cie\u015ble estate (surface area of 261\u00a0ha).<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 January 2016 the applicant and two other heirs of the former owners bought the land in question for a total sum of 16,009,200 Polish zlotys (PLN).<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 1944 Decrees<\/em><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0In 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation issued two decrees providing for nationalisation of agricultural and forest land.<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Decree on agrarian reform<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 September 1944 the Decree on agrarian reform was issued. It\u00a0provided that properties of an agricultural nature, owned or co-owned by natural or legal persons, with an area exceeding 100 ha in total or 50 ha of agricultural land, would be allocated for agrarian reform (section 2 \u00a7 1 (e)).<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0With regard to properties in the Pomeranian, Pozna\u0144 or Silesian regions the area was set at 100 ha, regardless of the size of the agricultural property.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The decree further prescribed that properties would be transferred to the State Treasury immediately and without any compensation.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 December 1944 the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests was issued. It provided that forests and forest land, owned or co\u2011owned by natural and legal persons, with an area exceeding 25 ha, would be transferred to the State Treasury.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0State\u2019s liability in tort<\/em><\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the Civil Code relating to the State\u2019s liability in tort are set out in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of Lubelska Fabryka Maszyn i Narz\u0119dzi Rolniczych \u2018Plon\u2019 and 2 other applications\u00a0((dec.) 1680\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 49-53, 3\u00a0October\u00a02017).<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Act of 6 July 2001 on the preservation of the national character of the country\u2019s strategic natural resources (\u201cthe 2001 Act\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the 2001 Act together with a summary of the domestic courts\u2019 case-law appears in Zamoyski-Brisson and others ((dec.) no. 19875\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 39-42 and 45-55, 3\u00a0October 2017).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Legislative initiatives concerning restitution and compensation for property taken under the communist regime<\/em><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The description of legislative initiatives aimed at enacting a restitution bill is provided in Lubelska Fabryka (cited above \u00a7\u00a7 67-71); Og\u00f3rek v. Poland ((dec) no. 28490\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 18 September 2012); and Pikielny v. Poland ((dec.) no. 3524\/05 \u00a7\u00a7 32-39, 18 September 2012).<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0The applicant submitted several application forms on various dates between 11 March 2013 and 5 March 2014.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0She complained in principle of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention on account of the fact that the State had failed to enact any compensation or restitution laws providing for restoration of property nationalised after the Second World War. She also referred to the fact that her claims for compensation for her legal predecessor\u2019s property had been dismissed.<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on numerous provisions of the Convention, the applicant further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she was discriminated against in the proceedings relating to her compensation claims; under Article 6 that the domestic courts committed errors of fact and law when dealing with her claims; under Article 13, that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of her claims; that her late father was persecuted after the Second World War on account of his political views and finally that her family had suffered injustice under the communist regime.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Restitution laws<\/em><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that Poland had failed to enact restitution laws relating to compensation or restitution of property nationalised after the Second World War.<\/p>\n This provision reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already held on many occasions that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention cannot be interpreted as imposing any general obligation on the Contracting States to return property which was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. Nor does this provision impose any restrictions on the Contracting States\u2019 freedom to determine the scope of property restitution or rehabilitation laws. The Convention imposes no specific obligation on them to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to their ratification of the Convention (see\u00a0Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos. 71916\/01 and 2 others, \u00a7 77, ECHR 2005\u2011V)).<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Polish State has no duty under Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention to enact laws providing for restitution of nationalised property or compensation for the property lost by the applicant\u2019s family (see Preussische Treuhand GmbH & CO. Kg\u00a0A.\u00a0A.\u00a0v.\u00a0Poland (dec.), no. 47550\/06, 7 October 2008, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64)<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a04.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for restitution and compensation<\/em><\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her claims for compensation and\/or restitution of the nationalised property had been dismissed by the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0 The Court reiterates that where the proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim it may be regarded as an \u201casset\u201d only where it has a\u00a0sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopeck\u00fd v. Slovakia [GC], no.\u00a044912\/98, \u00a7 52, ECHR 2004\u2011IX).<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the 1944 decrees provided for nationalisation of agricultural property and forest land. Pursuant to their provisions, the property was expropriated ex lege on the date of the decrees\u2019 entry into force. Most importantly, the decrees did not provide for payment of any compensation for the seized property (see paragraphs 49-51 above).<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0To the present day the Polish State has not enacted any further pre- or post-ratification restitution or compensation laws providing for restoration of property expropriated pursuant to the 1944 decrees that might have generated a new property right eligible for protection under Protocol No.\u00a01 (compare and contrast Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443\/96, \u00a7 100, ECHR 2004\u2011V).<\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0In respect of the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie estates, the Court observes that the domestic courts concluded that the applicant had no compensation or restitution claims under the domestic legislation (see\u00a0paragraphs 9, 10 above).<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that this interpretation of the domestic law does not appear to have been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. Consequently, in view of its limited jurisdiction to interpret domestic law (see\u00a0Jantner\u00a0v.\u00a0Slovakia, no. 39050\/97, \u00a7 32, 4 March 2003), in the circumstances of the present case, it does not find it necessary to substitute its view for that expressed by the Polish courts.<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, in respect of the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie estates, the applicant had no claim under domestic law that could qualify as an \u201casset\u201d protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kopeck\u00fd, cited above\u00a7 52). This part of the application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 70. The Court further notes that the applicant\u2019s claim for compensation and or restitution of the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie forest land was dismissed by the civil courts (see paragraphs 14-16 and 18-21 above). However, subsequently, the Wielkopolski Governor decided that the forest land belonging to those estates had not been taken over pursuant to the agrarian decree (see paragraph 26 above).<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0In addition, in respect of the Ciesle estate, the domestic court held that part of the property that is the park and palace complex, had not been taken over pursuant to the provisions of the agrarian decree (see paragraph 36 above).<\/p>\n 72. The applicant has not adduced any evidence that under the domestic law those decisions were sufficient to give rise to a proprietary interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention. In the Court\u2019s view, even assuming that those decisions were sufficient to give rise to such a \u201cproprietary interest\u201d (see, mutatis mutandis, Krasnod\u0119bska\u2011Kazikowska and \u0141uniewskav. Poland, no. 26860\/11, \u00a7 31, 6\u00a0October 2015) this part of the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in the present case the proceedings before the domestic courts were conducted in an adversarial manner. There is no indication that the applicant was in any way prevented from submitting her evidence and\/or developing legal arguments before the domestic courts. The applicant\u2019s case was examined by the courts of three instances, including the Supreme Court. The Court considers that the domestic courts exhaustively addressed the applicant\u2019s arguments and their decisions are sufficiently reasoned. Their interpretation of the domestic law does not appear to have been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. Consequently, noting that the applicant does not complain about any discrepancies in the domestic law and given that it is not the Court\u2019s function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, inter alia, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302\/02, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2007\u2011III), the Court sees no reason to call into question the domestic courts\u2019 decisions in this respect.<\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court observes that the applicant had failed to submit any information about the further course of the proceedings relating to the amendments in the land register in respect of the Stawiany and Paw\u0142owo Skockie forests. In addition, it should be noted that the applicant withdrew her statement of claim in respect of the Ciesle estate and decided to exercise her right of pre-emption in order to acquire its ownership (see\u00a0paragraphs\u00a045-47 above).<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must, as such, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Other alleged violations<\/strong><\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also relied on Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and complained that the domestic courts had committed errors of fact and law, that she had not had an effective domestic remedy and that she was discriminated against. She also complained that her late father had been persecuted after the Second World War by the communist authorities on account of his political views.<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined those complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of any of these Articles. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 19 July 2018.<\/p>\n Abel Campos\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ale\u0161 Pejchal
\nRegistrar\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\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