5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1943 respectively and live in Warsaw. 6.  The applicants are legal successors of the former owners of a property in the vicinity of Warsaw, called Willa Janówka, composed of a number of plots owned by several individuals. 7.  In 1971 the then owners of the property, including E.P., the applicants’ mother, were obliged by an administrative decision to transfer their land to the State Treasury without compensation within the framework of a larger expropriation scheme. 8.  On 30 December 2005 the Local Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze w Warszawie) gave a decision concerning the applicants and three other persons, legal successors of the other former owners expropriated by the 1971 decision. It declared that that decision had been issued in flagrant breach of the law in force at the material time. The parties were further informed that the corrective decision gave rise to a compensation claim on their part for damage caused by the original unlawful decision. 9.  On 28 August 2006 the applicants sought compensation for damage caused by the decision given in 1971. 10.  On 15 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the applicants’ claim and awarded 64,487 Polish zlotys (PLN) to each of them, corresponding to the value of the expropriated land. It held that the conditions determining civil liability in tort, namely a tortious event which caused damage and the establishment of a causal link between the event and the damage, were met in the case. In respect of tort committed by the State Treasury and caused by unlawful administrative decisions compensation could be sought only after a subsequent decision declared that the original administrative decision was unlawful. Such a corrective decision (decyzja nadzorcza) had been given in the applicants’ case in 2005 (see paragraph 8 above). 11.  The court went on to state that it was necessary to determine which provisions of substantive law were applicable to the circumstances of the case. The choice of substantive provisions determined, in turn, the beginning and the length of the time-limit within which the compensation claim had to be brought before the courts. The court noted that the original administrative decision had been given before 1 September 2004. On that date the Law of 17 June 2004 amending the Civil Code had entered into force. This law had fundamentally changed the legal framework concerning civil liability of the State Treasury. It abrogated, inter alia, Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and enacted Article 417 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 22-24 below). The court was of the view that it was the latter provision which should be applied to the circumstances of the case. Under this provision, read together with the provisions of the Civil Code on liability in tort, the prescription period started to run only when the decision of 30 December 2005, confirming the unlawfulness of the original expropriation decision, became final. The prescription period of three years had not therefore expired. 12.  The defendant State Treasury, represented by the mayor of Warsaw, appealed. 13.  On 26 November 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal examined the appeal and dismissed the applicants’ claim. It endorsed the findings of fact made by the lower court as to the existence of pecuniary damage and the causal link between the 1971 decision and that damage. However, it was of the view that the provisions concerning the State’s civil liability in tort should have been interpreted differently by the first-instance court, in particular as to the determination of the prescription period. The court observed that under the communist regime it was practically impossible, essentially for political reasons, to vindicate claims originating in unlawful administrative decisions or to seek compensation from the State Treasury for damage in tort caused by such decisions. The earliest date on which it was possible to do so was 4 June 1989, when the first partially free parliamentary elections were held in Poland. It was from that date that the prescription period of ten years provided for by Article 442 of the Civil Code started to run. The applicants should have availed themselves of the available remedy, namely they should have obtained a decision declaring the original expropriation decision unlawful prior to 4 June 1999 when the ten-year prescription period came to an end. 14.  The applicants appealed on points of law. They argued that the contested judgment was in breach of Article 77 of the 1997 Constitution in so far as it guaranteed the right to compensation for damage caused by the State. Neither the damage caused by the 1971 decision nor its unlawfulness were in dispute between the parties.
They further submitted that the case raised a significant legal issue in so far as there were divergent strands of case-law regarding the interpretation of legal provisions governing the State’s civil liability for administrative decisions made prior to 1 September 2004 and declared unlawful after that date. These differences in the judicial approach to similar cases, both as to the determination of the beginning of the prescription period and as to its length, had a decisive influence on the outcome of compensation cases brought by victims of unlawful administrative decisions and on the applicants’ case. 15.  On 21 October 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera as a single judge, refused to hear the applicants’ appeal on points of law, holding that it did not raise any significant legal issue. 16.  Parallel to the applicants’ case, A.C., a successor of another owner expropriated by the same expropriation decision given in 1971 and covered by the same corrective decision of 30 December 2005 (see paragraph 8 above), sought compensation in civil proceedings for damage caused by the original decision. She lodged her claim with the Warsaw Regional Court on 30 August 2006. 17.  By a judgment of 30 September 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed her claim and awarded her compensation in the amount of PLN 110,187, corresponding to the value of the plot of land owned by A.C.’s legal predecessor. It recounted briefly the divergent views expressed by the civil courts, including the Supreme Court, in cases concerning claims for pecuniary damage caused by administrative decisions declared unlawful after 1 September 2004. It noted that the manner in which the provisions concerning the State’s liability in tort for unlawful administrative decisions were interpreted had given rise to serious difficulties and differences of opinion in judicial practice. It disagreed with the view expressed in certain judicial decisions that the ten-year prescription period for bringing compensation claims before the courts had started to run when the unlawful decision had been given, but its running was subsequently stayed until 4 June 1989. The Regional Court was of the view that the three‑year prescription period, referred to in the former Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, was applicable to the circumstances of the case. It further held that this period had started to run when the corrective decision of 30 December 2005 declaring the 1971 decision unlawful had become final. 18.  On 5 September 2006 R.W., another legal successor of the original owners, brought a compensation case before the Warsaw Regional Court, claiming compensation from the State Treasury, represented by the mayor of Warsaw, for damage originating in the 1971 decision. He also referred to the corrective decision of 30 December 2005. 19.  By a judgment of 10 July 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed his claim and awarded him PLN 82,988, corresponding to the value of the land concerned. The court stressed that it was not in dispute that the original administrative decision had been unlawful. Nor was it in dispute that that decision had caused damage to the claimant. The court referred to the resolution given by the Supreme Court on 31 March 2011 (see paragraph 27 below). It shared the view expressed by the Supreme Court in this resolution that it was not justified to interpret the applicable provisions in a way imposing on the applicant an obligation to seek a declaration of unlawfulness of the original administrative decision within ten years after 4 June 1989.