Communicated on 2 May 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36300/15 Wioletta GEJER MISSBACH against Poland lodged on 13 July 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Wioletta Gejer Missbach , is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Stargard Szczeci Å„ ski. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Szulczewski , a lawyer practising in Stargard Szczeci Å„ ski.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background of the case

The applicant owns a house in Kl ę pino , which has been occupied on the basis of a rent-free contract ( umowa u ż yczenia ) by E.H., J.H. and their children (“the tenants”).

On 27 August 2009 the applicant terminated the contract.

On 14 December 2009 the Stargard Szczeci Å„ ski District Court found against the tenants and ordered them to leave the property. At the same time the District Court granted them the right to be provided with social accommodation by the Stargard Szczeci Å„ ski Municipality and suspended the order to leave the property until the municipality had provided them with such housing. The judgment became final on 2 March 2010.

The tenants have stayed in the applicant ’ s property since then and the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality has not offered them any social accommodation.

2. Civil proceedings for compensation

On 19 July 2010 the applicant brought a claim for compensation against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality. She relied on section 18(5) of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Tenants, Municipal Housing Resources and on Amendments to the Civil Code of 21 June 2001 ( Ustawa o ochronie praw lokatorów , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie Kodeksu cywilnego – “the 2001 Act”) .

On 29 July 2010 the Stargard Szczeci ń ski District Court issued a payment order ( nakaz zapłaty ) of 7,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,750 euros (EUR)) against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality in accelerated proceedings. Only the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality filed an objection. The payment order became final with respect to the tenants.

On 23 November 2011 the Stargard Szczeci ń ski District Court granted the applicant ’ s claim. It ordered the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Munici pality to pay the applicant PLN 2,165 (approximately EUR 541) in compensation. The court made a reservation that if the other defendants paid the compensation, the Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality would be exempted.

On an unspecified later date the applicant brought a claim against the tenants and the Stargard Szczeci Å„ ski Municipality in order to establish that the tenants had no right to social housing and that the municipality was no longer obliged to provide it for them.

On 12 August 2014 the Stargard Szczeci ń ski District Court rejected the applicant ’ s claim as the social accommodation question had already been determined.

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal. She submitted that the tenants ’ financial situation had improved since the final decision of 14 December 2009.

On 29 December 2014 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s interlocutory appeal. The court found that the right to receive social accommodation had been granted in a final decision. In addition, the applicant could bring a fresh compensation claim against Stargard Szczeci ń ski Municipality under section 18(5) of the 2001 Act. The decision was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 15 January 2015.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 18 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Tenants, Municipal Housing Resources and on Amendments to the Civil Code of 21 June 2001 ( Ustawa o ochronie praw lokatorów , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie Kodeksu cywilnego ) provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“1. Persons occupying an apartment without legal title must pay compensation for each month until they vacate the apartment.

2. Subject to subsection 3, such compensation shall be equal to the amount of rent the owner could obtain if the apartment was rented out [...].

3. Where people are entitled to social accommodation and a court has decided to suspend their obligation to leave an apartment until they have been offered social accommodation, they shall pay compensation equal to the amount of rent or other fees for using the apartment which they would pay if the legal relationship still existed.

4. [ repealed ]

5. If a municipality fails to provide social accommodation to a person entitled to it under a final court judgment, the owner [of an apartment] has the right to claim compensation from the municipality, on the basis of Article 417 of the Civil Code.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions , within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999 ‑ V )?