Search
document

Document text Analytics

I.G. v. POLAND AND GERMANY

Doc ref: 31440/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3475

Document date: January 17, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

I.G. v. POLAND AND GERMANY

Doc ref: 31440/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3475

Document date: January 17, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31440/96

by I. G.

against Poland and Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 November 1995

by I. G. against Poland and Germany and registered on 9 May 1996 under

file No. 31440/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows:

The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1913, is a retired

physician, residing in Warsaw.

In 1942 the applicant's parents were killed by the German

occupation authorities which subsequently confiscated their movable

property.

On 26 October 1945 a Decree on Real Estate in Warsaw was enacted

by the Polish Government which transferred the ownership of all real

property located within the administrative borders of Warsaw to the

municipality.

In 1947 the Otwock Municipal Court (S*d Grodzki) declared that

the applicant had inherited the property of his late parents.

On 30 March 1993 the applicant apparently submitted a request to

the Warsaw District Office (Urz*d Rejonowy) for restitution of the

property located in Warsaw which had been owned by his parents.

On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant complained to the

Warsaw District Office about the lack of progress in the proceedings.

On 28 November 1994 the applicant submitted documents to prove

the property rights of his late parents and his title as their legal

successor.

On 3 July 1995 the applicant again complained to the District

Office about the lack of progress in the proceedings concerning his

restitution claim.

In a letter of 2 May 1995 the applicant applied to the German

Embassy in Warsaw for compensation for his parents' property

confiscated during the German occupation of Poland in 1942.

In a letter of 2 September 1995 to the German Federal Government

the applicant requested compensation.

On 22 September 1995 the German Embassy in Warsaw informed the

applicant that no compensation could be granted for the loss of

property sustained in 1942 as in 1953 Poland had renounced any

compensation claims against Germany which might have arisen out of the

Second World War, and this was further confirmed in the Agreement

between Poland and Germany concluded in 1970.

On 30 April 1996 the German Federal Ministry of Finance informed

him that no compensation could be awarded to him as there was no legal

basis for his claim.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the confiscation of his parents'

movable property in 1942 by the German occupation authorities and that

his efforts to obtain compensation have failed.

He further complains that in 1945 the real property owned by his

parents was expropriated by the Decree on Real Estate in Warsaw and

that he cannot obtain restitution of this property.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the confiscation of his parents'

movable property in 1942 by the German occupation authorities and that

his efforts to obtain compensation from the German authorities have

failed.

The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention, which reads, insofar as

relevant:

"Every 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."

Insofar as the application is directed against Germany, the

Commission observes that the expropriations concerned took place before

the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 with respect to the Federal

Republic of Germany on 13 February 1957. The Commission further

observes that no right to compensation can be derived from Article 1

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in cases concerning facts which occurred

before the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complains that in 1945 the real property

owned by his parents was expropriated by the Decree on Real Estate in

Warsaw.

a) Insofar as the applicant complains about the expropriation of the

property owned by his parents by the 1945 Decree on Real Estate in

Warsaw, the Commission observes that Poland ratified Protocol No. 1 to

the Convention on 10 October 1994. The legislation complained of was

enacted in 1945.

The Commission further recalls its established case-law according

to which a deprivation of ownership or other rights in rem is in

principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing

situation of "deprivation of right" (No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14

p. 146).

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

b) Insofar as the applicant's complaint against Poland concerns his

efforts to obtain restitution of the property nationalised by virtue

of the 1945 Decree on Real Estate in Warsaw, the Commission recalls

that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention does not

guarantee a right to restitution of property (cf., mutatis mutandis,

No. 23131/93, Dec. 4.3.96, D.R. 85-A, p. 65, No. 25497/94, Dec.

17.5.95, D.R. 85-A, p. 126).

It follows that this part of the application must be declared

inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant