FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 1041\/12
\nPAROWA FABRYKA CUKR\u00d3W I CZEKOLADY KRYSZTA\u0141 against\u00a0Poland
\nand 2 other applications
\n(seelist appended)<\/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,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the cases<\/em><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 January 1946 the State National Council (Krajowa Rada Narodowa) passed the Law on the nationalisation of basic branches of the State economy (Ustawa o przej\u0119ciunaw\u0142asno\u015b\u0107Pa\u0144stwapodstawowychga\u0142\u0119zigospodarkinarodowej\u2013\u201cthe 1946 Act\u201d; see paragraph 43 below). Owners of the nationalised enterprises were to receive compensation, the amount of which was to be determined at a later stage pursuant to a Cabinet ordinance yet to be enacted. However, no such ordinance has ever been enacted.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 1041\/12<\/em><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant company was established before the Second World War and registered in the companies register at the Cracow Regional Court under the name ParowaFabrykaCukr\u00f3wiCzekolady \u201cKryszta\u0142\u201d Sp. z. o.o. In\u00a01949 its assets included a factory building with numerous machines and plots of land in Cracow and Gdynia.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 December 1948 the company was nationalised by virtue of a decision of the Minister for Industry and Trade (\u201cthe 1948 decision\u201d).<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for the annulment of the 1948 decision<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 May 1990 J.D, Z.K and C.L., heirs of the former shareholders of the applicant company, applied to the Minister for Economy (Minister Gospodarki) for restitution of the expropriated property.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 March 2000 they modified their request and lodged an application for declaring the 1948 decision null and void.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 October 2002 the Minister for Economy declared null and void the 1948 decision. The Minister established that the company\u2019s real employment capacity at the material time had been no more than forty nine people on one shift and not more than fifty, as estimated for the purposes of the impugned decision. Consequently, nationalisation of the company had been unlawful as, pursuant to section 3(1) B of the 1946 Act, it could only be effected in respect of enterprises employing a minimum of fifty people on one shift.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The decision was upheld by the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court on 2 June 2004.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant company\u2019s claim for compensation<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 September 2005 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Minister of Economy under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (\u201cCAP\u201d) for compensation.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 June 2006 the Minister returned the claim as meanwhile Article 160 had been repealed. The proceedings were terminated by the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court on 27 June 2007.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 November 2007 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court seeking damages arising from the unlawful nationalisation. It sought 12,913,419 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 3,228,354\u00a0euros (EUR)) and the costs of the proceedings. The claim was based on Article 160 of CAP.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 October 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court partly granted the claim. It awarded the applicant company PLN 1,445,815 (approx. EUR\u00a0361,454) with interest from 24 October 2011. The court noted that the applicant company had already been restituted the factory building. It further held that the company should be compensated by the State for the lost equipment, products and supplies. However, it considered that the claim for the loss of expected profit (lucrumcessans) was manifestly ill-founded. In this respect it repeated the reasons given by the Supreme Court in its Resolution of 31\u00a0March 2011 (see paragraphs 45, 46 below).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 July 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and awarded the applicant company additional compensation for the actual loss (damnum emergens), in the amount of PLN\u00a01,517,651 (approx. EUR 379,413). The court relied on the fact that in the 1960\u2019s the factory had been transformed into an apartment building. On 9\u00a0January 2008, the date when the building was restituted to the applicant company, there were ten apartments and twelve commercial premises. All ten apartments were occupied, eight of them on the basis of the special lease scheme. In the court\u2019s view, had it not been for the nationalisation of the applicant company\u2019s property, the factory building would not have been converted into an apartment building. Consequently, the applicant company suffered damage on account of this conversion.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2013 the Supreme Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, quashed the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment in so far as it had awarded additional PLN 1,517,651 and dismissed the applicant company\u2019s claim in this respect. The Supreme Court held that there had been no direct causal link between the nationalisation of the property and the fact that the apartments created in the converted factory building had been subject to the special lease scheme. The judgment is final.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 38617\/13<\/em><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Before the Second World War the applicants\u2019 legal predecessor, owned a tannery in Leszno which operated under the name \u201cWhite Leather Tannery A.\u00a0Herman and Son\u201d (Przedsi\u0119biorstwoGarbarniBia\u0142osk\u00f3rniczej A.\u00a0Herman iSyn).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0In 1945 the tannery consisted of several plots of land, factory buildings and had its own railroad spur.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 November 1950 the enterprise was nationalised by virtue of a decision of the Minister for Light Industry (Minister Przemys\u0142uLekkiego) (\u201cthe 1950 decision\u201d).<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for the annulment of the 1950 decision<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 December 1990 the heirs of the of the former owners of the nationalised enterprise: A.H., J.H., JA.H., and one of the applicants, applied to the Minister for Economy (Minister Gospodarki) for restitution of the expropriated property. Subsequently, they modified their request into an application for declaring the 1950 decision null and void.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 August 2004 the Minister for Economy declared null and void the 1950 decision. The Minister established that the enterprise\u2019s potential employment capacity had been no more than forty five people on one shift and not over fifty as it had been estimated for the purposes of the 1950 decision. Consequently, nationalisation of the company had been unlawful.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The decision of 17 August 2004 was eventually upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 31 January 2007.<\/p>\n b)\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 claim for compensation<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 August 2004 one of the applicants lodged a claim under Article\u00a0160 of CAP for compensation with the Minister of Economy. On 13\u00a0June\u00a02007 the Minister of Economy returned the claim as meanwhile that provision had been repealed.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In 10 March 2008 the applicants lodged an application with the Warsaw District Court proposing to settle amicably with the State Treasury their compensation claims arising from unlawful nationalisation. They asked for a total sum of PLN 7,800,000 (approx. EUR 1,950,000), of which PLN\u00a06,300,000 (approx. EUR 1,575,000) for the actual loss and the remainder of that sum for the loss of expected profit. At a conciliatory hearing held on 21 April 2008 the parties failed to agree on a settlement.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 April 2011 the applicants and J.H. (another heir of the former owner) lodged a claim with the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court seeking damages arising from the nationalisation of the tannery. They sought PLN\u00a09,000,000 (approx. EUR 2,250,000) to each of them with statutory interest from 1\u00a0April\u00a02003 and the costs of the proceedings. They further extended their claim.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 July 2012 the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court branch in Leszno partly granted the claim. It awarded to each of the plaintiffs PLN 11,714,385 (approx. EUR 2,928,596) with interest from 1 April 2005. The court held that there was no doubt that the applicants had sustained actual loss that should be compensated by the State. It noted in that regard that the applicants had already been restituted some of the nationalised land. It further held that the company should be compensated by the State for the lost equipment, products and supplies. However, referring to the Supreme Court\u2019s Resolution of 31\u00a0March 2011 (see paragraphs 45-46 below) it considered that the claim for the loss of expected profit should be dismissed.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 December 2012 the Pozna\u0144 Court of Appeal modified the first-instance judgment. It dismissed the applicants\u2019 claims in so far as they exceeded PLN 1,575,000 (approx. EUR 393,750), as time-barred. It further dismissed the applicants\u2019 claims for loss of expected profit and remitted the remainder of the case to the Regional Court instructing it to recalculate the company\u2019s assets, with reference to experts\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 September\u00a02015 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant\u2019s cassation appeal. Consequently, the ruling relating to the claim for loss of expected profit became final.\u00a0It would appear that the proceedings, in so far as they relate to the claim for the actual loss, are pending before the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0Meanwhile, on 17 April 2013 the applicants also lodged a constitutional complaint. They claimed that Article 160 of the CAP was in breach of the Constitution in so far as it excluded the possibility of obtaining compensation for the loss of expected profit in a situation when the administrative decision had been issued before the entry into force of the Constitution, even though the loss occurred after the Constitution\u2019s entry into force.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 2015 the Constitutional Court refused to examine the complaint on the ground that it had already examined a similar legal issue in its judgment of 24 April 2014 (SK 56\/12)(see paragraph 47 below).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 50598\/14<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s legal predecessor was an owner of property situated in Rzesz\u00f3w consisting of three plots of land. On an unknown date before 31\u00a0December 1954, the property was de facto seized by the Regional Public Car Transport Company in Rzesz\u00f3w (\u201cTransport Company\u201d) (Wojew\u00f3dzkiePrzedsi\u0119biorstwoPa\u0144stwowejKomunikacjiSamochodowej w Rzeszowie).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 April 1961 the Minister of Transport (Minister Komunikacji) issued a decision (\u201cthe 1961 decision\u201d) validating the transfer of ownership of plots in question pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 25\u00a0February\u00a01958 on regulating the legal status of property under the State management (ustawa z dnia 25 lutego 1958 r. o uregulowaniustanuprawnegomieniapozostaj\u0105cego pod zarz\u0105dempa\u0144stwowym) (\u201cthe 1958 Act\u201d).<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings for the annulment of the 1961 decision<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Minister for Transport and Maritime Economy (Minister TransportuiGospodarkiMorskiej) for declaring the 1961 decision null and void.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 May 2002 the Minister for Infrastructure (Minister Infrastruktury) declared the 1961 decision null and void. The Minister noted that the 1958 Act had only allowed for nationalisation of properties which had been subject to State\u2019s management (mieniepozostaj\u0105ce pod zarz\u0105dempa\u0144stwowym). However, the property in question had been taken over by the Transport Company without any title. Therefore, the provisions of the 1958 Act were not applicable.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 December 2004 one of the plots was restituted to the applicant.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s claim for compensation<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 February 2005 the applicant lodged a claim under Article 160 of the CAP with the Minister for Transport and Construction (Minister TransportuiBudownictwa) for compensation for unlawful nationalisation.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 March 2006 the Minister refused to grant compensation on the ground that the applicant had not proved that he had suffered damage and\/or that there was a direct causal link between any damage and the 1961 decision.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 April 2006 the applicant lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court seeking damages arising from the nationalisation of his legal predecessor\u2019s property. He sought PLN 199,000 (approx. EUR\u00a049,750) and the costs of the proceedings. The claim was based on Article 160 \u00a7 2 of the CAP.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, on 15 June 2007 the applicant extended his claim to PLN 1,730,970 (approx. EUR 432,742). This amount comprised compensation for the loss of expected profit (PLN 1,490,000) (approx. EUR\u00a0372,500) and compensation for the legal defects (wadyprawne) of the returned property (PLN 235,000) (approx EUR 58,750).<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 June 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the claim as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that the applicant did not prove any damage relating to the legal defects of the property. With relation to the claim for the loss of expected profit it repeated the reasons given by the Supreme Court\u2019s in its judgment of 25\u00a0January 2006 (no. I CK 273\/05) (see paragraph 44 below). The Regional Court held that, even though Article\u00a0160 of the CAP had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in so far as it had restricted compensation to actual loss, this ruling had not concerned claims for compensation for damage that had been incurred before the Constitution had entered into force, that is before 17 October 1997.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 April 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in so far as it had concerned the claim for the loss of expected profit. It also dismissed the remainder of the applicant\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 September 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the claim for the loss of expected profit. The court referred to the reasons given by the Supreme Court in its Resolution of 31\u00a0March 2011 (see paragraphs\u00a045, 46 below).<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The judgment was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 11\u00a0July 2012 and subsequently by the Supreme Court on 11 October 2013.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Nationalisation of industrial property and State\u2019s liability in tort<\/em><\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the domestic law and practice concerning nationalisation of industrial property and State\u2019s liability in tort are set out in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of LubelskaFabrykaMaszyniNarz\u0119dziRolniczych\u2018Plon\u2019 and 2 other applications\u00a0((dec.) 1680\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 44-62, 3\u00a0October\u00a02017).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation for damage caused by unlawful administrative decisions<\/em><\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the domestic law and the case-law of the domestic courts relating to compensation for damage caused by unlawful administrative decisions are set out in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of Dobrza\u0144ska and Dobrza\u0144ski v. Poland (see, (dec.) no. 64128\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0\u00a022-33, 2\u00a0February\u00a02016)<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Supreme Court\u2019s resolution on the application of Article 160 of the CAP to compensation claims<\/em><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 March 2011 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in plenary (25 judges), gave a resolution (no. III CZP 112\/10) on the application of Article 160 of the CAP and rules regarding compensation. The resolution was given in response to legal questions submitted by the First President of the Supreme Court in connection with certain problems and divergences arising in judicial practice, in particular in respect of the temporal effects of Article 160.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The resolution contains an extensive reasoning which, in so far as relevant, may be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0\u00a0Article 160 \u00a7\u00a7 1,2,3 and 6 of the CAP applies to all claims for damages arising from an issuance of a final administrative decision given before 1 September 2004, which has been declared null and void or has been declared as being issued in breach of Article 156 \u00a7 1 of the CAP. In contrast, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 160, setting out the procedure for vindicating such claims, should be considered as no longer applicable. Consequently, a party seeking compensation under this provision should file an action directly with a civil court.<\/p>\n 2)\u00a0\u00a0Where an annulled administrative decision has been given before the entry into force of the Constitution (17 October 1997), compensation defined in Article 160 of the CAP shall not include loss of expected profit sustained in consequence of its issuance, even if such loss has occurred after this date.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Constitutional Court<\/em><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 April 2014 the Constitutional Court gave judgment (SK\u00a056\/12) holding as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cArticle160 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings in conjunction with Article 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 amending the Civil Code, as far as it limits compensation for damaged caused by an unlawful act of a public authority to actual loss in cases where the deficient final decision was issued before 17 October 1997:<\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0is consistent with Article 2 [rule of law in a democratic state] and with Article\u00a032\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 [equality before the law] of the Constitution;<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0is not inconsistent with Article 77 \u00a7 1 of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0All applicants complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that as a result of the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court they had been deprived of compensation for the loss of expected profit.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0Two applicants (application nos. 93861\/13 and 50598\/14) also asserted a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention on the ground that their legal predecessor\u2019s property was nationalised after the Second World War.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0Two applicants (application nos. 1041\/12 and 50598\/14) alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the applicants in application no. 93861\/13 complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the fact that a civil court dismissed part of their claims as time-barred.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Joinder of the applications<\/strong><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court considers that the three applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged that they had been unable to obtain full compensation for their property nationalised after the Second World War notwithstanding the fact that the authorities had confirmed that the nationalisation decisions had been null and void. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which 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 54.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 sufficient basis in national law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it (see Kopeck\u00fd v.\u00a0Slovakia[GC], no.\u00a044912\/98, \u00a7 52, ECHR 2004\u2011IX).<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in all the three cases under consideration, administrative authorities\u2019 confirmed that the nationalisation decisions were null and void (see paragraphs 8, 20 and 33 above). Consequently, the applicants had a possibility to claim damages for nationalisation under Article 160 of the CAP (see, Og\u00f3rek v. Poland (dec), no. 28490\/03, \u00a7 33-36, 18\u00a0September 2012 and Pikielny v. Poland (dec.) no. 3524\/05 \u00a7 58, 18\u00a0September 2012, and a contrario,LubelskaFabrykaMaszynRolniczych\u2018Plon\u2019, cited above \u00a7 85).<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, the applicants in all the cases were restituted some part of the nationalised property (see paragraphs 13, 25 and 34 above). In the first case (no. 1041\/12) the applicant company was also awarded compensation for the actual damage caused by the nationalisation of the enterprise in question corresponding to the value of the damages to the building, lost technical equipment, products and supplies (see paragraphs 13 and 15 above). The proceedings relating to the claim for actual damage in the second case (no.\u00a038617\/13) are still pending (see paragraph 27 above). As regards the third application (no. 505981\/14), the applicant\u2019s claim was dismissed (see paragraph 39 above).<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that crux of the matter is that the applicants\u2019 claims for the loss of expected profit were rejected by the domestic courts. In this respect it notes that the domestic courts consistently held, with reference to the case-law of the Supreme Court, that when an annulled administrative decision had been given before 17 October 1997, compensation provided by Article 160 of the CAP did not include loss of expected profit (see paragraphs 13, 25, 26, 39, and 41 above).<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0In that connection, the present cases resemble the case of Dobrza\u0144ska and Dobrza\u0144ski v. Poland (cited above), in which Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was found to be inapplicable in similar circumstances. The Court held in that case that the claim for loss of expected profit had not had a sufficient basis either in the relevant domestic provisions or in the practice of the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the conclusions reached by the domestic courts in the present cases, the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 claims are not based on any statutory provision. Nor can it be said that such claims have been recognised in the Polish courts\u2019 case-law.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants cannot be considered to have had any claim under domestic law that could qualify as a \u201cpossession\u201d protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that these complaints are incompatible rationemateriae 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 C.\u00a0\u00a0Remaining complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No\u00a01 about the fact that their legal predecessor\u2019s property was nationalised, the Court observes that the properties in question were nationalised in 1948, 1950 and 1954 respectively (see paragraphs 5, 18 and 30 above).<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the deprivation of ownership or of another right in rem is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of \u201cdeprivation of a right\u201d (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071\/96, ECHR 2000\u2011XII).<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, given that given that Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 entered into force with respect to Poland only on 1 May 1994, the Court considers that, these complaints are incompatible rationetemporiswith the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04.<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0In so far the applicants (application nos. 1041\/12 and 50598\/14) alleged a breach of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that this provision of the Convention only applies where an individual has an \u201carguable claim\u201d to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. Given its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention (see paragraph 60 above), the Court considers that the applicants have no \u201carguable claim\u201d and that the complaint under Article 13 should also be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, as regards the complaint under Article 6 (application no.\u00a093861\/13), the Court finds it to be of a fourth-instance nature as it relates to the outcome of the proceedings.\u00a0It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Declares the applications 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\u0161Pejchal <\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n Krak\u00f3w<\/td>\n Leszno<\/p>\n Maria Lewandowska<\/strong><\/p>\n Leszno<\/p>\n Jacek Herman<\/strong><\/p>\n Pozna\u0144<\/td>\n Krak\u00f3w<\/td>\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\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 1041\/12<\/td>\n 08\/12\/2011<\/td>\n PAROWA FABRYKA CUKR\u00d3W I CZEKOLADY KRYSZTA\u0141<\/strong><\/p>\n J\u00f3zef FORYSTEK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 38617\/13<\/td>\n 07\/06\/2013<\/td>\n Anna HERMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Jaros\u0142aw PEDA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 50598\/14<\/td>\n 07\/07\/2014<\/td>\n Jakub BULANDA<\/strong><\/p>\n Marcin IMIO\u0141EK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n