CASE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTIST CHURCH IN WROCŁAW v. POLAND
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant is a legal entity, a local community of the Christian Baptist Church in the Republic of Poland operating on the basis of the Act of 30 June 1995 on Relations Between the Republic of Poland and the Christian Baptist Church Act (ustawa o stosunku Państwa Polskiego do Kościola Chrześcijan Baptystów w RP – hereinafter “the 1995 Act”) with its seat in Wrocław. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. The case concerns a property with a four-storey building and another building dedicated to sacral purposes in Wrocław. Before World War II the property was used by the Baptist Commune belonging to the Bund Evangelisch-Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland operating on the territory of the German Reich. The property number was 1077/42. It measured 0.785 ha. 8. On 4 September 1946 the Wrocław Governor (Wojewoda Wrocławski) decided that the property in question should become subject to the applicant church’s management (przejęcie w zarząd) on the basis of section 2(4) of the 1946 Decree on abandoned property (dekret o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich – hereinafter “the 1946 Decree”). 9. In 1956 the applicant church lodged a request to be registered in the land and mortgage register as the owner of the property and the request was granted. The property was registered under the number 945. 10. On 23 April 1959 the Minister of the Economy announced a new interpretation of section 2 (4) of the 1946 Decree. 11. On 23 June 1959 the District Residential Buildings Board for Wrocław-Krzyki (Dzielnicowy Zarząd Budynków Mieszkalnych) decided that all kinds of property which were subject to the church’s management were to pass into the ownership of the State and ordered that the applicant church transfer the property in question to the State. The order did not concern the part of the property which was dedicated exclusively to sacral purposes. 12. On 19 August 1966 a new land-register entry 35905 was opened for the property no. 1077/42. The land-register entry 945 was however not closed. 13. In 1968 the property was registered under the land-register number 35905 was given a new plot number 9 and its area was recalculated. The new measurement was 0.371 ha. It appears that the plot number 9 constituted only a part of the previous property number 1077/42 and comprised only the building dedicated to sacral purposes. 14. The remaining part of the original property number 1077/42, which comprised the four-storey building, was given new plot numbers 39 and 33/5. It measured 0.325 ha and a new land-register entry 63650 was opened for it. In 1977 the State was registered as the owner of this property and, after the reform of the local governments of 1990, the property was transferred to the City of Wrocław. 15. The present application concerns the right to the property referred to above in paragraph 14. 16. On 9 May 1996 the applicant church requested that the Wrocław Governor issue a decision confirming the applicant church’s ownership of the property in question. It relied on the newly enacted 1995 Act (see paragraphs 47-50 below). 17. On 12 September 1996 the Wrocław Governor refused to issue a decision which would confirm that the property in question belonged to the applicant church. The Governor found that the applicant church had failed to satisfy a requirement laid down in section 39 of the 1995 Act, specifically that it had not possessed the property in question on the day of entry into force of the Act relied upon. The Governor further held that: “... , section 40 of the Act likewise cannot be applied because the property in question is located on territory which was not part of Poland before 1 September 1939. The fact that the property was owned by an organisational unit of the Baptist Church operating in the German Reich does not constitute a basis to claim return of ownership because its ownership was transferred to the State under the [1946 Decree].” 18. On 23 September 1996 the applicant church appealed against this decision to the Minister of the Interior and Administration. 19. On 18 February 1998 the applicant church sent a letter to the Minister, specifying that the time-limits laid down in the Code of Administrative Proceedings had been exceeded and requested that the Minister issue a decision. 20. On 1 July 1998 the Minister replied that the length of the proceedings was attributable to amendments of the 1995 Act and informed the applicant church that the relevant decision would be issued by 15 August 1998. 21. This time-limit was not respected and therefore, on 12 January 1999, the applicant church lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint in respect of the alleged inactivity of the administrative authority. 22. On 5 March 1999, before examination of the applicant church’s complaint, the Minister of the Interior and Administration issued a decision, annulling the challenged decision and ordering the return of the case to the Governor. The Minister ordered that, when re-examining the case, the Governor should take into account the amended section 4 of the 1995 Act. 23. In view of the fact that the Minister had issued a decision, on 28 April 1999 the applicant church withdrew the complaint of 12 January 1999 concerning the inactivity of the administrative authority. 24. After remittal of the case, on 24 March 1999, the Governor of Lower Silesia (Wojewoda Dolnośląski) asked the Wrocław Commune whether there was any property available which could be granted to the applicant church in return for the property in question. It appears that the Governor’s letter was left without reply. 25. On 29 May 1999 the Governor requested from the Minister of the Interior and Administration an official interpretation of the amended section 4 of the 1995 Act “in view of the many doubts as regards the proper interpretation of this provision”. 26. On 20 June 2000 the Minister replied that, since the administrative authorities were bound by provisions of law binding on the day of decision, it was irrelevant that the applicant church’s original request had been lodged when section 4 of the 1995 Act had had different wording. 27. On 21 July 2000 the applicant church asked the Governor to issue a decision in its case, pointing out that the time-limits laid down in the Code of Administrative Proceedings had been exceeded. 28. On 20 October 2000 the applicant church lodged a complaint (zażalenie) with the Minister of the Interior and Administration that the Governor had exceeded the statutory time-limits and had failed to issue a decision on the merits or to justify the delay in the proceedings. 29. On 7 December 2000 the applicant church lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the alleged inactivity of the Governor. 30. On 1 March 2001 the Minister of the Interior and Administration found the applicant church’s complaint of 20 October 2000 well founded and ordered the Governor to issue a decision on the merits before 30 April 2001. 31. On 30 April 2001 the Governor stayed the proceedings. 32. On 7 July 2001 the applicant church appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings. 33. On 17 December 2001 the Minister of the Interior and Administration allowed the appeal, finding that the proceedings should not have been stayed, annulled the challenged decision and returned the case to the Governor. 34. On 12 March 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant church’s complaint against the inactivity of the administrative authority and ordered the Governor of Lower Silesia to issue a decision on the merits within the time-limit of thirty days. 35. On 21 June 2002 the Governor’s office gave a decision and refused to return the property in question to the applicant church. It found that the applicant church, although registered as owner under the land-register number 945 and treated in the past by the administrative authorities as owner, had never in fact owned the property, which had only been left under the applicant church’s administration (oddane w zarząd). 36. On 12 July 2002 the applicant church appealed. 37. On 23 September 2002 the Minister of the Interior and Administration annulled the challenged decision and returned the case for re-examination to the Governor. The Minister found, among other things, that the Governor had had no right to question the validity of the entry in the land register. 38. On 23 February 2003 the applicant church complained to the Governor about the delay in the proceedings. 39. On 8 February 2007 the Governor’s office gave a procedural decision in which it held that owing to the particularly complicated nature of the case, the decision on the merits could not be issued within the statutory time-limits and set a new deadline for decision of 30 June 2007. 40. On 18 June 2007 the Governor of Lower Silesia gave a decision on the merits and refused to return to the applicant church the property in question. The Governor relied on the amended 1995 Act and found that the applicant church had failed to satisfy the requirements laid down in section 4 of the Act, namely that it could not be a legal successor of the Church which had not operated on the territory of Poland before 1 September 1939. 41. On 11 July 2007 the applicant church appealed. 42. On 6 February 2008 the Minister of the Interior and Administration upheld the challenged decision. 43. On 11 March 2008 the applicant church lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. 44. On 12 September 2008 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant church’s complaint. 45. On 10 November 2008 the applicant church lodged a complaint against the Regional Administrative Court’s judgment with the Supreme Administrative Court. 46. On 13 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant church’s complaint. The judgment was served on the applicant church’s lawyer on 6 January 2010.