FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 4830\/14
\nAgnieszka RACZY\u0143SKA and Barbara PALI\u0143SKA
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nJovan Ilievski, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2013,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, Ms Agnieszka Raczy\u0144ska and Ms Barbara Pali\u0144ska, are Polish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1955 respectively and live in Warsaw. They were represented before the Court by Ms M. G\u0105siorowska, 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 applicants, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Background<\/em><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0In 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) issued the decree on agrarian reform (dekret o reformie rolnej) (\u201cthe agrarian decree\u201d) relating to nationalisation of agricultural land (see paragraphs 15-18 below).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 legal predecessors, L.P and C.P., were the owners of the \u201cOsada fabryczna J\u00f3zefin\u201d estate (52.45 ha). In addition C.P. was the owner of land situated in J\u00f3zef\u00f3w (46.86 ha). On 6 March 1945 the property was taken over by the State Treasury for the purposes of agrarian reform pursuant to section 2 \u00a71 (e) of the agrarian decree. On 24 March 1945 the estate was partitioned. In 1946 the State Treasury was entered in the land register.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for annulment of the expropriation measure<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 November 1990 Z.R., the applicants\u2019 mother, applied to the Minister for Trade and Services (Minister Handlu i Us\u0142ug) for restitution of a mill that had formed part of the J\u00f3zefin estate.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Following a number of administrative decisions and appeals, the proceedings were eventually terminated by a decision of the \u0141\u00f3d\u017a Governor (Wojewoda \u0141\u00f3dzki) of 9 May 2006. The governor stated that the J\u00f3zefin estate had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian reform\u00a0as its surface area had not exceeded the required 100 ha in total and 50 ha of agricultural land.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claim for compensation<\/em><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 October 2007 the applicants and a certain M.H. (another heir of the former owners) lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court seeking damages arising from the nationalisation of their legal predecessor\u2019s property. They each sought 632,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR\u00a0158,000) and the costs of the proceedings. Subsequently, they extended their claim to PLN 799,655.66 (approx. EUR 199,913) for each of them.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 June 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court granted the claim. It awarded PLN 799,655.66 to each of the plaintiffs. The court held that under the transitional provisions of section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on amendments to the Civil Code and other statutes (Ustawa o zmianie ustawy \u2013 Kodeks cywilny oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw \u2212 \u201cthe 2004 Amendment Act\u201d), Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (\u201cCAP\u201d), applied to \u201cevents and legal situations\u201d that subsisted before the entry into force of the 2004 Amendment Act. However, since the applicants\u2019 claim was related to the governor\u2019s decision of 9 May 2006, the relevant provisions of the Civil Code applied to the present case (see paragraph 20 below).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The State Treasury, represented by the General Attorney\u2019s office (Prokuratoria Generalna), appealed against this judgment, submitting that the applicants\u2019 claim was time-barred. They should have requested restitution of their legal predecessors\u2019 property already as of 1989, that is after the fall of the communist regime.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 July 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the first\u2011instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim. The court held that the damage in the present case had been caused by the distribution of the land in question to individual farmers. Therefore, the law applicable to the present situation was the law in force in 1946. However, since at that time there had been no legal provisions relating to the State\u2019s liability for damage caused by public officials, the relevant law applicable to the applicants\u2019 situation was the Law of 15 November 1956 on the State\u2019s liability for damage caused by public officials (Ustawa o odpowiedzialnosci Skarbu Panstwa za szkody wyrzadzone przez Funkcjonariuszow panstwowych) (\u201cthe 1956 Act\u201d).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The court noted that the 1956 Act had provided for a one-year time\u2011limit to lodge any claims for damage which had been caused before the act\u2019s entry into force. On 14\u00a0July\u00a02004 the Constitutional Court had found this regulation to be compatible with the Constitution (SK 8\/03).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0With relation to the applicants\u2019 arguments that their mother had, on many occasions, applied for restitution of the property in question, the Court of Appeal noted that these applications had resulted in the Lodz Governor\u2019s decision of 9 May 2006 (see paragraph 6 above). However, the court observed, relying on the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 1\u00a0December 2004 (III\u00a0CK 50\/04), that in order to vindicate compensatory claims it was not necessary to obtain an administrative decision confirming that the nationalisation of agricultural property had been unlawful. Since the applicants\u2019 predecessors had not complied with the time-limit provided by the 1956 Act, the claim in question had become time-barred on 27\u00a0November 1957. The court agreed, again quoting the Supreme Court\u2019s case-law, that even if the applicants\u2019 claim could not have been effectively vindicated during the communist regime, as of 1989 the applicants could have brought a civil action for compensation. However, while the applicants\u2019 legal predecessor Z.R. had lodged applications for restitution of property and for declaring that the estate in question had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree, a claim for compensation was lodged only in 2007.\u00a0The court further noted that Article 160 of the CAP was not applicable to the present case, since the J\u00f3zefin estate was not expropriated pursuant to an administrative decision.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, in the court\u2019s view, having regard to the fact that a claim for compensation had been lodged nearly eighteen years after the political transition, the defendant\u2019s objection relating to prescription could not be considered as an abuse of right (naduzycie prawa).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 August 2013 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicants\u2019 cassation appeal, holding that it did not raise any significant legal issue.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The Decree on agrarian reform<\/em><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 September 1944 the Polish Committee of National Liberation issued a decree providing for nationalisation of agricultural land.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The decree provided that properties of an agricultural nature, owned or co-owned by natural or legal persons, with an area exceeding 100\u00a0hectares (ha) in total or 50 ha of agricultural land, would be allocated for agrarian reform (section 2(1)(e)).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0With regard to properties in the Pomeranian, Poznan or Silesian regions the area was set at 100 ha, regardless of the size of the agricultural property.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The decree further prescribed that properties would be transferred to the State Treasury immediately and without any compensation.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0State\u2019s liability in tort<\/em><\/p>\n 19.\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 Narzedzi Rolniczych \u2018Plon\u2019 and 2 other applications v.\u00a0Poland \u00a0((dec.) 1680\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 49-53, 3\u00a0October\u00a02017).<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Code of Administrative Procedure and the relevant case-law<\/em><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure (\u201cthe CAP\u201d) relating in particular to situations when a final administrative decision may be annulled, are set out in Lubelska Fabryka Maszyn i Narzedzi Rolniczych \u2018Plon\u2019(cited above \u00a7\u00a7 63-66).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Examples of the Supreme Court\u2019s case-law concerning compensation claims relating to administrative decisions are described in the judgment of Krasnod\u0119bska-Kazikowska and \u0141uniewskav. Poland (no.\u00a026860\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a025-27 October 2015).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Legislative initiatives concerning restitution and compensation for property taken under the communist regime<\/em><\/p>\n 22.\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 23.\u00a0\u00a0They applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State had failed to enact any restitution or compensation laws providing for restoration of agricultural property nationalised in 1944.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants further alleged, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, that as a result of the application of statutory prescription time-limits by the domestic courts they had been denied any compensation for damage arising from expropriation of their legal predecessors\u2019 property.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Failure to enact restitution laws<\/strong><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that Poland had failed to enact restitution laws relating to compensation for nationalised agricultural property. This provision of the Convention 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 26.\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\u00a0others, \u00a7 77, ECHR 2005\u2011V)).<\/p>\n 27.\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 property lost by the applicants\u2019 family (see Preussische Treuhand GmbH & CO. Kg A. A. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a047550\/06, 7 October 2008, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64).<\/p>\n 28.\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 4.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Failure to provide compensation<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also alleged, relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, that as a result of the application of statutory time-limits by the domestic courts they had been denied compensation for the damage arising from the expropriation in 1944. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention (see, Krasnod\u0119bska-Kazikowska, cited above\u00a7\u00a055).<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that the applicants had not alleged that there had been any discrepancies in the case-law of the domestic courts; they only asserted that the manner in which the Court of Appeal had applied the domestic law had been unfair (compare and contrast with Plechanow v.\u00a0Poland, no. 22279\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 105-107, 7 July 2009).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0It further 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 sufficient 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.44912\/98, \u00a7\u00a052, ECHR 2004\u2011IX). However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No 1 is applicable in the instant case (see Krasnod\u0119bska-Kazikowska, cited above \u00a7\u00a7 31-33), the Court considers that the present complaint is in any event inadmissible for the reasons specified below.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the agrarian decree provided for the nationalisation of agricultural property and forest land. Pursuant to its provisions, the property was expropriated ex lege on the date when the decree had entered into force. Most importantly, the decree did not provide for payment of any compensation for the seized property (see paragraphs 15-18 above).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Until the present day the Polish State has not enacted any further pre\u2011or 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 with Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443\/96, \u00a7\u00a0100, ECHR 2004\u2011V).<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case the domestic authorities had confirmed that the property in question had not fallen within the scope of the agrarian decree (see paragraph 6 above). The applicants\u2019 claim for damages resulting from the unlawful nationalisation was granted in its entirety by the court of first instance (see paragraph 8 above). However, the Warsaw Court of Appeal reversed that judgment and dismissed the claim. The court linked the damage in the present case with the distribution of the land to individual famers. It also took the view that the provisions of the 1956 Act were applicable and concluded that the applicants\u2019 claim was time-barred (see\u00a0paragraphs 10-12 above). The Supreme Court refused to examine a further cassation appeal as it did not consider that it had raised a significant legal question (see paragraph 14 above).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that,\u00a0in the context of seeking judicial redress for property-related issues, the existence of a statutory limitation period per se is not incompatible with the Convention or a Protocol thereto. What needs to be ascertained in each given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and\/or the manner in which it was applied is compatible with the Convention requirements (see, Skenderi v. Serbia, no.\u00a015090\/08, \u00a7\u00a097, 4\u00a0July 2017 with further references to the Court\u2019s case-law).<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case the prescription period was envisaged in the 1956\u00a0Act, which regulation was subsequently found to be compatible with the Constitution (see paragraph 11 above). The Court considers that it was therefore lawful. It also pursued a legitimate aim, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality in the area of property disputes.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the domestic courts displayed any arbitrariness in the application of the said time-limit. The Court of Appeal, extensively relying on the case-law of the Supreme Court, confirmed that while, during the communist regime, similar claims could not have been effectively vindicated, there were no obstacles after 4\u00a0June\u00a01989 to seek damages for post-war expropriations (see paragraph\u00a012 above). Most importantly, it observed that the applicants\u2019 claim for damages had been lodged only in 2007, that is nearly eighteen years after the political transition (see paragraph 13 above).<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0In the Court\u2019s view, given that the applicants did not complain of any divergences in the case-law of the domestic courts, this interpretation of the domestic law does not appear to have been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. There is no indication either that the applicants were in any way prevented from submitting their evidence or developing legal arguments before the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the material before it, and its limited power to deal with alleged errors of fact committed by domestic authorities, the Court finds no elements to substitute its view for that expressed by the Polish courts.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 are manifestly ill-founded and must, as such, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Krasnod\u0119bska-Kazikowska, cited above \u00a7\u00a7 49-50).<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.<\/p>\n Renata Degener\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 FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4830\/14 Agnieszka RACZY\u0143SKA and Barbara PALI\u0143SKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of: Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Jovan Ilievski, judges, and…<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\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","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"