Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 56

September 2003

Hutten- Czapska v. Poland ( dec. ) - 35014/97

Decision 16.9.2003 [Section IV]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para . 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Impossibility of recovering property or obtaining adequate rent from tenants: admissible

The applicant’s parents owned a house in Poland. At the end of the Second World War, in May 1945, the first floor of the house was assigned to a tenant by the municipal authorities where the house was located, and it was subsequently placed under State management in accordance with legislation in force at the time. In 1975, the mayor issued a decision by which the ground floor was leased to another tenant. In 1990, the District Court declared that the applicant had inherited the property and as a result she took over the management of the house from the municipality. With a view to recovering her property she initiated civil proceedings for the relocation of the tenants to dwellings owned by the municipality and claimed compensation for deprivation of and damage to her property. The Regional Court and later the Court of Appeal found that on the basis of the 1994 Act on the Lease of Dwellings and Housing Allowances there was no obligation to relocate the tenants to municipal housing, and dismissed her claims for damage. Her appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. In 1995 the applicant brought eviction proceedings against the tenants, but the District Court dismissed her claim. The applicant also initiated administrative proceedings requesting that the decisions of 1945 and 1975 by the municipality and the mayor respectively (which were the basis of the tenants’ leases) be declared null and void. The courts declared that the decisions “had been issued contrary to law”, but did not annul them. Under the 1994 Act the rents which the tenants paid were “controlled”, and the applicant claims that the amounts fixed by the authorities did not cover the basic maintenance expenses of her property. The 1994 Act was repealed in 2001 following a judgment of the Constitutional Court. The legislation introduced in replacement continued to make it very difficult for landlords to raise rents.

Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol 1: The Court may have regard to facts prior to ratification if these created a situation beyond that date. The applicant’s complaint was not directed at a single measure or decision before the date of ratification, but rather at the continuing restriction on her property rights by successive pieces of legislation. Moreover, it had not been explained how the remedies referred to by the Government would have improved the applicant’s situation.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes