Information Note on the Court’s case-law 17

April 2000

Potocka and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 33776/96

Decision 6.4.2000 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Failure to examine appeal concerning compensation for nationalised property: admissible

In 1945, all real property in Warsaw was expropriated to the benefit of the State. However, as a measure of compensation, former owners wer e offered the right to lodge an application for ownership of their plots for a limited period; such a right could be awarded on the condition that the plots had not been reserved for public use. In 1947, J.P., husband of the first applicant and father of t he other applicants, had such an application lodged on his behalf for two plots of land he had formerly owned; the authorities did not reply. In 1990, the second applicant, who had inherited J.P.'s estate, and the other applicants, requested the restitutio n of the two plots and a decision on the application made in 1947. The District Office rejected the request as a whole, and examined the second limb as a continuation of the 1947 application. The office maintained that the palace situated on the land had b een severely damaged during the Second World War and had subsequently been rebuilt at the Government’s initiative and expense; thus, nothing justified restitution of the plots. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed to the Governor’s Office against this de cision and then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which rejected their appeal insofar as it concerned the application lodged in 1947. The court declared that, pursuant to the relevant legislation, it was not competent to deal with appeals again st administrative decisions in proceedings instituted before September 1980. Insofar as the appeal concerned the 1990 application for restitution, the court examined this on the merits and found the refusal of restitution to be lawful.

Admissible under Art icle 6 § 1 (access to court as regards the application for use of the property).

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants have not shown that they had any relevant existing possessions or any legitimate expectation of having their pro perty restored to them. Furthermore, the Convention does not guarantee a right to restitution of property: incompatible ratione materiae .

© 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