FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 33895/96 by Jerzy Wacław PIETRZAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 16 November 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr M. Pellonpää , judges ,

and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 September 1993 and registered on 18 November 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1934 and living in Koszalin , Poland.

A. The circumstances of the case [Note1]

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

In 1978 a plot of land, originally owned by the applicant’s parents, was expropriated. The compensation for the property was deposited with a court, because the administrative organ responsible for the expropriation had not established the address of the owners (in fact they had died before the expropriation).

In 1991 the applicant obtained a court decision declaring him the only heir to his late parents’ property.

1. Administrative proceedings concerning compensation for the 1978 expropriation

On 16 June 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Praga-Północ District Office ( Urząd Dzielnicy Gminy Warszawa Praga-Północ ) a request to reopen the proceedings concerning the compensation, claiming that he had not taken part in the 1978 proceedings, because he had not been informed about them, and that the final decision had been based on false documents.

On 9 September 1993 the Head of the Warsaw District Office ( Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego ) refused the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed against that decision, but his appeal was on 22 November 1993 dismissed by the Warsaw Governor ( Wojewoda ), who found that the applicant’s request had been lodged out of a prescribed time limit. The applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court ( Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny ) an appeal against the Governor’s decision.

On 20 April 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 9 September and 22 November 1993, considering that the applicant had lodged his request to reopen the proceedings one day after receiving the text of the 1978 expropriation decision, therefore within the time limit.

On 15 November 1996 the Head of the Warsaw District Office reopened the proceedings concerning the compensation for the 1978 expropriation. On 25 March 1997, in the course of the proceedings, the Head of the Warsaw District Office declared that the 1978 decision had been issued in breach of the Code of Administrative Procedure. However, the decision could not be quashed as more than 5 years had passed since the date of its issuance. The applicant lodged with the Warsaw Governor an appeal against the decision of the Head of the Warsaw District Office.

On 3 July 1997 the Warsaw Governor quashed the decision of 15 November 1996 and remitted the case for re-examination. The Governor ordered the Head of the Warsaw District Office to establish whether it had been the applicant’s fault that he had not taken part in the 1978 proceedings.

On 1 January 1998 there came into force a new law, according to which the governors became the first-instance organs in cases concerning expropriation and compensation therefor. As the Head of the Warsaw District Office had not completed the relevant procedure before that date, the Warsaw Governor took over the case.

On 2 December 1998 the Warsaw Governor dismissed the applicant’s appeal and refused to quash the 1978 decision. The Governor stated that there was no indication that the documents were false. He also found that the fact that the applicant had not taken part in the 1978 proceedings had resulted from his own fault, because according to law he should have informed promptly the relevant authorities about his parents’ death and the fact that he had inherited the property. The applicant appealed against that decision to the President of the Office for the Housing and Urban Development ( Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast ).

On 12 August 1999 the President of the Office for the Housing and Urban Development dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It appears that the applicant did not lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court an appeal against that decision.

2. Administrative proceedings concerning revaluation of the compensation

On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant filed with the Head of the Warsaw District Office a request for revaluation of the compensation granted in the course of the 1978 expropriation proceedings.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity on the part of the administrative organs, which despite his requests had not issued any decision. On 2 June 1993 the court delivered a judgment in which it obliged the Head of the Warsaw District Office to issue a decision with respect to the revaluation within one month after the service of that judgment.

On 7 September 1995 the Head of the Warsaw District Office decided to revalue the compensation and grant the revalued compensation to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, as he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation and contested the legal grounds for the revaluation.

On 12 December 1995 the Warsaw Governor dismissed his appeal, quashed the decision of the Head of the District Office and refused to revalue the compensation. The Governor considered that the compensation could not be revalued , as it had been actually paid in the form of so-called “substitute payment”, i. e. it was deposited with a court.

It appears that the applicant did not lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court an appeal against that decision.

3. Civil court proceedings

( i ) In 1993 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) an action in which he requested that the decision to deposit the compensation for the 1978 expropriation with a court be declared void.

On 7 September 1994 the court dismissed his request. It considered that in the course of the expropriation proceedings the applicant had failed to submit a court’s decision declaring him the heir to his late parents’ property, despite having been so requested, and therefore the compensation had been deposited with a court.

On 5 April 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court.

(ii) In his letters of 11 February and 30 May 2000 the applicant submits that on an unspecified date he lodged an action concerning the 1978 expropriation with civil courts (cases nos. I C 947/97 and I C 2285/97). The Warsaw Regional Court scheduled two hearings, for 4 March and 17 April 1998, but they were adjourned, because of the defendants’ absence. The applicant submits that the court has not examined the case yet, despite having been so instructed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal in its decision of 10 December 1996.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Domestic remedies against inactivity on the part of the administration

Until 1 October 1995, according to Section 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a party to administrative proceedings could, at any time, lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the fact that an administrative organ had failed to issue a decision requested.

On 1 October 1995 a new Law of 11 May 1995 on the Supreme Administrative Court took effect. Section 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was repealed.

According to Section 17 of the Law a party to administrative proceedings may, at any time, lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint against an inactivity on the part of an organ obliged to issue an administrative decision.

Section 26 of the Law provides:

"When a complaint against an inactivity on the part of the administration is well-founded, the Supreme Administrative Court shall oblige an administrative organ to issue a decision, or to perform a specific act, or to confirm, declare, or recognise a right or obligation provided by law."

According to Section 30 of the Law the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the inactivity is legally binding on the organ concerned. If the organ in question has not complied with such a decision, the court is competent, under Section 31 of the Law, to fine the organ and to adjudicate upon the right or obligation in question.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings concerning the compensation for the expropriation and the revaluation thereof. He also raises that complaint with respect to the civil court proceedings described in sections 3 ( i ) and (ii) above.

2. He further submits that in the civil court proceedings concerning the decision to deposit the compensation with a court (described in section 3 ( i ) above) the judges were not impartial, that he was deprived of a right to defend himself and not refunded the court costs, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, claiming that he was threatened by the court that if he kept insisting on recording the course of a hearing, the court would order his arrest.

3. Finally, the applicant raises a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the inadequate compensation for the 1978 expropriation.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings concerning the compensation for the expropriation and the revaluation thereof.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of civil court proceedings described in section 3 (ii) above.

The Court notes that despite having been so requested on two occasions, the applicant has failed to provide information which would allow the Court to establish the subject of his claims in those proceedings and their course. It therefore considers that this complaint is unsubstantiated. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

3. In respect of the civil court proceedings described in section 3 ( i ) above the applicant raises the following complaints:

(a) under Article 6 § 1 about the unreasonable length of the proceedings;

(b) under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) that the judges were not impartial, that he was deprived of a right to defend himself and not refunded the court costs;

(c) under Article 10 of the Convention about the alleged threats to arrest him.

With respect to the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings the Court observes that they lasted approximately 2 years and involved two court instances. As regards the remaining complaints, the applicant has not submitted any prima facie evidence supporting his allegations. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

4. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the inadequate compensation for the 1978 expropriation.

The Court observes that the compensation itself and the revaluation thereof were the subject of the administrative proceedings. However, it appears from the applicant’s submissions that he failed to lodge with the Supreme Administrative Court appeals against the decision of 12 December 1995 issued by the Warsaw Governor in the proceedings concerning the revaluation and the decision of 12 August 1999 issued by the President of the Office for the Housing and the Urban Development in the proceedings concerning the compensation.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints about the unreasonable length of the proceedings concerning the compensation for the 1978 expropriation and the proceedings concerning the revaluation of the compensation;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President

[Note1] Include information obtained from the Government on the Judge Rapporteur’s request (Rule 49 § 2 (a)) or Chamber’s request (Rule 54 § 3 (a)), with indication of this fact, where appropriate.