Communicated on 24 August 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 66/12 Antoni WYSZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 29 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Antoni Wyszyński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Pozna ń . He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Zielonacki , a lawyer practising in Pozna ń .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

The applicant is an owner of an apartment in Poznań .

The apartment has been occupied by a tenant R.S. who, for the last several years has failed to pay the fees and charges.

On 24 August 2007 the Poznań District Court gave a judgment against R.S. who was ordered to leave the apartment. At the same time the District Court granted R.S. a right to receive a social accommodation from the Poznań Municipality and decided that the R.S. ’ s obligation to leave the apartment be suspended until the municipality provides R.S. with social accommodation.

Since then, R.S. has been occupying the applicant ’ s apartment and the Poznań Municipality has not provided R.S. with any proposal as regards social accommodation.

2. The applicant ’ s attempts to receive compensation

On 13 August 2008 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation against the Pozna ń Municipality. He relied on Section 18(5) of of the Act of 21 June 2001 on the protection of the rights of tenants, housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to the Civil Code ( Ustawa o ochronie praw lokatorów , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie Kodeksu cywilnego – “the 2001 Act”) .

On 16 September 2009 the Pozna ń District Court granted the applicant ’ s claim in part and ordered the Pozna ń Municipality to pay to the applicant 21,971 Zlotys (PLN) in compensation. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim.

Both parties appealed against this judgment.

On 11 May 2011 the Pozna ń Regional Court amended the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. The court found that the applicant had failed to prove that even if R.S. moved out, the applicant would be able to rent the apartment to someone else and to have profits thereof. The court underlined that the apartment needed renovation and, in any event it would not be rented immediately after R.S. moving out.

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He relied, among other things, on the fact that in other sets of proceedings against the Pozna Å„ Municipality, with identical factual circumstances, the courts had in the past ruled in his favour.

On 3 June 2011 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant ’ s cassation appeal. This decision was served on the applicant ’ s lawyer on 30 June 2011.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Act of 21 June 2001 on the protection of the rights of tenants, housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to the Civil Code ( 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 a legal title must pay compensation for every month until they vacate the apartment.

2. Subject to point 3, the compensation equals the amount of rent which the owner might obtain if the apartment was rented [ ... ].

3. Persons entitled to a social accommodation - in case a court decided to suspend their obligation to leave the apartment until they are offered social accommodation – shall pay compensation in the amount of rent or other fees for using of the apartment which they would have to pay if the legal relation still existed.

4. [ repealed ]

5. If the municipality fails to provide social accommodation to a person entitled to it by a final court ’ s judgment, an owner [of the 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 his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Reference is made to the prolonged period of failure on the part of the Pozna ń Municipality to provide R.S. with social accommodation.

2. 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)?

3. Has the applicant any effective domestic remedy or remedies in respect of her complaint, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can a claim for compensation under Section 18 of the Act of 21 June 2001 on the protection of the rights of tenants, housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to the Civil Code be considered an effective remedy?

To the Government:

The Government are asked to provide the Court with information as regards the number of persons in Poland awaiting allocation of social accommodation in consequence of execution of eviction judgments.