WOŹNY v. POLAND
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
1. The applicant, Mr Zdzisław Woźny, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Elbląg. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Szereda, a lawyer practising in Łódź. 3. The application concerns national bonds issued by the State Treasury in 1936. The bonds were to have been redeemed by 1982. However, the State failed to undertake any steps to redeem them or to pay interest to the holders of those bonds. 4. On 14 November 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against the State Treasury, represented by the Ministry of Finance. He claimed 550,823.19 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 137,700 euros (EUR)). 5. On 19 December 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that it had become time-barred and that, moreover, its value would in any event approach zero zlotys after the application of all due indexation methods. 6. The applicant appealed against that judgment. 7. On 6 August 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the firstinstance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It considered, inter alia, that finding the applicant’s claim time-barred had been contrary to the principles of community life (sprzeczna z zasadami współżycia społecznego). The Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court should have examined the applicant’s claim on the merits. 8. On 18 December 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court found part of the claim well founded, awarded the applicant PLN 216,647 (approximately EUR 54,160) and dismissed the remainder of the claim. 9. On 2 February 2009 the Ministry of Finance lodged an appeal against that judgment. 10. On 30 June 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal asked the Supreme Court for an explanation of a legal question concerning the applicability to the present case of the indexation clause contained in Article 3581§ 3 of the Civil Code. In particular, the Court of Appeal had doubts as to whether the indexation clause should be applied if a significant change in the value of a claim had resulted from legislative changes. 11. On 22 October 2009 the Supreme Court, in reply to the Court of Appeal’s request, ruled that the Court of Appeal had failed to meet the requirements which would have allowed it to turn to the Supreme Court for interpretation; instead, it stated that the Court of Appeal should decide independently on the present case. 12. On 15 January 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the challenged judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court found, inter alia, that the national bonds had lost their real value because of the 1949 Decree (see paragraph 14) and the 1950 Act (see paragraph 18). Relying on the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 24 April 2007 (see paragraph 27), it ruled that the indexation of the value of the applicant’s claim by way of judicial decision was inadmissible because the change in the value of the claim had been caused by the lawmaker and had not been a result of external, unpredictable causes. 13. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 14. On 24 March 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court endorsed the reasoning of the judgment given by the Court of Appeal and confirmed that the applicant’s claim had indeed lost its economic value as a result of legislative changes enacted in 1949 and 1950. 15. Article 4 provides: “The payment of dues resulting from pecuniary obligations arising from any title of a private or public nature before the entry into force of the present decree and not redeemed until that day may only be effected in the Polish currency.” 16. At the relevant time, Article 5, subsequently repealed, provided: “(1) The change in the purchasing power of money during the time between the creation of an obligation and its payment date or performance does not constitute a basis for a change in the amount of the obligation or in the means of the execution of the contract or dissolution of the contract. (2) Payment of an obligation, specified in Polish currency on the basis of this decree, shall be made in banknotes of the Polish National Bank according to their nominal value, which is equal to the nominal value of banknotes or other means of payment, which were expressed in zlotys and which were in circulation on the territory of Poland or a part thereof before the introduction of the National Polish Bank’s banknotes into circulation. (3) For the establishment of the value of pecuniary obligations referred to in the present Decree and expressed in the Polish currency, it is irrelevant what means of payment was in circulation at the time of the creation of the obligation.” 17. Article 6 § 2 provides: “The amount of obligations expressed in zlotys in gold is calculated at 1 zloty for 1 zloty in gold.” (Wysokość należności z zobowiązań pieniężnych wyrażonych w złotych w złocie liczy się jeden złoty za jednego złotego w złocie) 18. The Change of Monetary System Act of 28 October 1950 (o zmianie systemu pieniężnego) provided that all public and private obligations expressed in zlotys, irrespective of the time at which they came into existence, were to be recalculated with effect from 30 October 1950 according to the following ratio: 100 “old” Polish zlotys equals 3 Zloty. 19. Under section 9 of this Act, all amounts expressed in “old” zlotys and mentioned in legal provisions binding on the day of the entry into force of this Act were recalculated, by virtue of law, according to the following ratio: 100 “old” zlotys = 3 zloty. 20. The Polish Zloty Denomination Act of 7 July 1994 Act (ustawa o denominacji złotego) introduced a new payment unit: with effect from 1 January 1995 the new unit of PLN 1 was to be worth 10,000 “old” Polish zlotys. 21. Article 32 of the Constitution reads: 1. All persons shall be equal before the law. All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities. 2. No one shall be discriminated against in political, social or economic life for any reason. 22. Article 64 of the Constitution reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: 1. Everyone shall have the right to ownership, other property rights and the right of succession. 2. Everyone, on an equal basis, shall receive legal protection regarding ownership, other property rights and the right of succession ... 23. Article 3581 § 3 of the Civil Code provides: “In the case of an essential change of the purchasing power of money after an obligation falls due the court may, after considering the interest of the parties and in accordance with the principles of community life, change the amount or the mode of payment, even if these were fixed in a decision or a contract.” 24. On 24 April 2007 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment (SK 49/05) in which it held that section 12(1) of the Act of 28 July 1990 amending the Civil Code, in so far as it limited the possibility of judicial indexation referred to in Article 3581 § 3 of the Civil Code as regards pecuniary obligations which had come into existence before 30 October 1950 as a result of bonds emitted by the State Treasury, was inconsistent with Article 64 §§ 1 and 3 in conjunction with Article 32 § 1 of the Constitution. 25. In the part named “effects of the judgment” the Constitutional Court noted: “Taking into consideration the effects of this judgment and the impossibility of claiming the full value of claims arising from national bonds issued before 1939, the matter of possibility and scope and, in particular, the amount of just satisfaction for persons holding such bonds should be resolved by the lawmaker. As stressed on many occasions in its case-law, the Constitutional Court should not replace the lawmaker. The finding by the Constitutional Court that section 12(1) of the Act of 28 July 1990 amending the Civil Code was inconsistent with the Constitution ... will enable the holders of national bonds to access the indexation of their claims guaranteed by Article 3581 § 3 of the Civil Code. However, in practice, the expiry of limitation periods may effectively deprive claimants of a chance to achieve a positive outcome in the relevant proceedings. If [the Parliament] does not enact new provisions before section 12 (1) of the Act of 28 July 1990 expires, holders of national bonds, who have been patiently waiting for the settlement of their claims, will be able to lodge [with civil courts] their claims for payment in an amount which will be calculated with the application of the indexation clause. However, the present judgment of the Constitutional Court does not indicate to the courts the scope, direction or scale of the indexation.” 26. The provisions which had been found unconstitutional were subsequently repealed, which opened the way for applicants to lodge their claims before the courts and to demand that the value of their claims be increased by judicial order.