FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 47663/11 Zbigniew KASPRZYKOWSKI against Poland lodged on 24 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Kasprzykowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Krakó w . The applicant is an heir of his mother, Ms B.K., who died in 1975.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The background of the case

On 17 October 1946 a property ‘ Wesołówka ’ owned by the applicant ’ s mother was taken over by the State pursuant to provisions of the Decree of the Polish Committee of National Liberation on the Agricultural Reform of 6 September 1944 ( Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej ; the 1944 Decree ). No decision was delivered at this stage of the proceedings.

On 23 October 1948 the Board of the Warsaw Regional National Council ( Prezydium Warszawskiej Wojewódzkiej Rady Narodowej ) , acting on a motion of the applicant ’ s mother to exclude her property from the operation of the agricultural reform, decided that the property falls within the scope of the reform.

In July 1957 the Board of the Warsaw National Council quashed its decision ( orzeczenie ) of 23 October 1948 and decided that the property did not fall within the scope of the decree. The decision had not been signed or stamped and was later referred to as a ‘ draft decision ’ by the domestic courts and administrative authorities.

The applicant ’ s mother sought restitution of her property until her death in September 1975.

Over the years the property was divided into smaller plots. Some of the plots were acquired by private individuals, others remained the property of the State.

2. Pro ceedings for the annulment of the expropriation decision

On 1 June 2007 the applicant lodged a motion to have the decision of 23 October 1948 quashed.

On 31 October 2007 the Mazowiecki Governor ( Wojewoda Mazowiecki ) referred the case to the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development ( Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi ).

On 6 March 2012 the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development quashed the decision of 23 October 1948 ( stwierdził nieważność orzeczenia ).

Subsequently, the applicant requested a re -examination of his motion of 1 June 2007. The applicant stated that quashing of the decision of 23 October 1948 resulted in him becoming an owner of the property in question. He thus argued that the decision should not have been quashed as regards the part of the property which had been acquired in good faith by private individuals as this would prevent him from claiming compensation from those individuals. According to the applicant, th e part of the decision relating to the private plots of land should have been declared as delivered in violation of law ( wydana z naruszeniem prawa ) which would enable him to claim compensation from the State.

On 8 May 2012 the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development up held his previous decision of 6 March 2012. The Minister argued that quashing of the decision of 23 October 1948 had not automatically resulted in the applicant becoming the owner of the property Wesołówka . In the Minister ’ s view, a refusal to quash the decision would have adversely affected the applicant ’ s interests since only quashing of the entire decision would enable the applicant to contest other decisions delivered as a result of the quashed decision. The applicant appealed.

It appears that the proceedings are currently pending.

3. T he applicant ’ s complaint about the inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development

On 29 January 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Administrative Court ( Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie ) about the inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development.

On 14 February 2008 the Minister of Agriculture replied to the applicant ’ s complaint. The Minister explained that he had initiated the proceedings on 4 February 2008 by requesting the applicant to redefine his motion of 1 June 2007 and to provide documents certi fying that he was an heir of Ms B.K. ’ s property rights. The Minister further informed the applicant that his case would be handled in the third quarter of 2008.

On 10 April 2008 the Warsaw Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s inactivity complaint. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment.

B . Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law concerning complaints alleging inactivity on the part of administrative authorities is set out in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Grabiński v. Poland , no. 43702/02, § § 60-65 , 17 October 2006 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of administrative proceedings .

ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND

ITMarkQuestionStart QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in order to comply with the exh austion requirement, should he have lodged a further similar inactivity complaint (s) following his unsuccessful complaint dismissed by the Warsaw Administrative Court on 10 April 2008 ?

2. If not , was the length of the proceedings in the present case in compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?