Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31

June 2001

Zwierzyński v. Poland - 34049/96

Judgment 19.6.2001 [Section I]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Deprivation of property

Failure to return property and proceedings aiming to contest ownership by the State of property inherited by the applicant: violation

Facts : In 1952 a property which the applicant’s father had acquired in 1 937 was expropriated. He was awarded compensation, but neither he nor his heirs claimed it. Following an appeal by the applicant’s parents, the Minister for Economic Affairs declared the entirety of the proceedings since the 1952 expropriation decision nul l and void. The current occupier of the premises appealed against that decision, but a decision issued in 1992 confirmed that the proceedings from 1952 onwards were null and void. In 1994 it was decided that the applicant and his sister should each inherit half of their deceased parents’ estate, and they were listed in the land register as joint owners of the property in issue. However, it was still not returned to them. In September 1992 proceedings were brought by the Treasury on behalf of the new occupie r of the premises, the regional police authority, asserting acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession. The District Court upheld the 1994 decision on appeal and in 1999 rejected an application by the applicant for rectification of the entry in the land register. In 1998 the heirs of the person who had sold the property in issue to the applicant’s father brought an action to have the proceedings concerning the division of the estate reopened, arguing that they had rights over the proper ty. The court then stayed the proceedings brought by the Treasury until the action to reopen the proceedings concerning the division of the estate was settled. The case is still pending.

Law : Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) – The proceedings had lasted eig ht years and eight months; however, having regard to its jurisdiction ratione temporis , the Court was only able to take a period of eight years and one month into consideration. The main causes of the delay had been the successive suspensions of the procee dings and the dilatory conduct of the current occupiers of the property in issue.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – It was clear from decisions at domestic level that the authorities had considered the applicant’s father to be the owner of the property; moreover, he had been the only person from whom it could have been expropriated. Furthermore, the courts had recognised the applicant, who had succeeded to his father’s estate, as the owner of the property and the authorities had subsequently treated him as such; lastly, he paid the taxes and outgoings in respect of the building. The applicant therefore had title to a “possession”. The regional police authority’s continued occupation of the premises – even though the applicant ’s father had been recognised as the rightful owner of the property and the applicant had succeeded to his estate – and the actions it had instituted amounted to a manifest interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. T he State authorities had done everything possible to delay returning the property to the applicant. Their de facto expropriation of the property had not been carried out in the public interest and had placed an individual and excessive burden on the applic ant. The interference had therefore been unjustified.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded PLN 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the excessive length of proceedings and PLN 25,000 for costs and expenses; it reserved the question in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes