KASPRZYKOWSKI v. POLAND
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Kasprzykowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Rybna. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. 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 Agrarian Reform of 6 September 1944 (Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej; the 1944 Decree). No decision was delivered at this stage of the proceedings. 5. 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 fell within the scope of the reform. 6. 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. This new decision had not been signed or stamped and was later referred to as a ‘draft decision’ by the domestic courts and administrative authorities. 7. The applicant’s mother sought restitution of her property until her death in September 1975. 8. Over the years the property was divided into smaller plots. Some of the plots were acquired by private individuals and the Nowe Miasto Commune, others remained the property of the State Treasury. 9. On 1 June 2007 the applicant lodged a motion to have the decision of 23 October 1948 annulled. 10. On 31 October 2007 the Mazowiecki Governor (Wojewoda Mazowiecki) decided to refer the case to the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi). He found, after examining the case file of the previous proceedings, that the latter authority was the competent authority to examine the applicant’s motion. 11. On 29 January 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie) about the inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development. 12. On 14 February 2008 the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development replied to the applicant’s complaint. The Minister explained that on 4 February 2008 the applicant had been requested to redefine his motion of 1 June 2007 and to provide documents certifying that he was an heir of Ms. B.K.’s property rights. He considered that this information was essential to proceed with the case. The Minister further informed the applicant that the time-limit to handle his case had been prolonged until the third quarter of 2008. 13. On 10 April 2008 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s inactivity complaint. It appears that the applicant failed to request that written grounds for the judgment be prepared. He also did not appeal against this judgment. 14. On 6 March 2012 the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development declared the decision of 23 October 1948 null and void (stwierdził nieważność orzeczenia). 15. The applicant and the Płońsk Forestry Management (Nadleśnictwo Płońsk) requested a re-examination of the case. The applicant argued that declaring the decision of 23 October 1948 null and void resulted in him becoming an owner of the property in question. He thus considered that the decision should not have been declared null and void as regards the part of the property which had been acquired in good faith by private individuals. According to the applicant, the part of the decision relating to the private plots of land should have been declared as issued in breach of law (wydana z naruszeniem prawa) which would enable him to claim compensation from the State. 16. On 8 May 2012 the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development upheld his previous decision of 6 March 2012. The Minister argued that declaring the decision of 23 October 1948 null and void had not automatically resulted in the applicant becoming the owner of the property Wesołówka. In the Minister’s view, a refusal to declare null and void the decision would have adversely affected the applicant’s interests since only the annulment of the entire decision would enable the applicant to contest other decisions delivered as a result of the quashed decision. 17. The applicant challenged the above decision before the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court which on 19 March 2013 gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 18. The State Treasury represented, statio fisci, by the State Forests National Forest Holding (Państwowe Gospodarstwo Leśne Lasy Państwowe) lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 19. The proceedings are pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. 20. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the 2002 Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, are set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Grabiński v. Poland no. 43702/02, §§ 60-65, 17 October 2006. 21. On 3 December 2010 Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings and Article 3 of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts were amended (amendments entered into force on 11 April 2011). 22. Following the amendment to Article 37 § 1 a party to administrative proceedings may currently file a complaint not only about an authority’s failure to handle the case within the time-limits referred to in Articles 35 and 36, but it may also complain about undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings (przewlekłe prowadzenie postępowania). 23. Section 3 § 2 of the Law of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, as amended on 11 April 2011, contains provisions allowing a party to administrative proceedings to lodge a complaint with an administrative court, alleging inactivity of the authority obliged to issue an administrative decision or undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings. Under section 149, if a complaint is well-founded, an administrative court shall oblige the authority concerned to issue a decision, or to perform a specific act, or to confirm, declare, or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law. 24. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are presented in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005V and Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005VIII, and its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.