WILCZYŃSKA v. POLAND
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Ms Barbara Wilczyńska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Cracow. 2. The applicant is a co-owner of four plots of land located in Nowy Sącz. 3. On 18 May 2010 the Nowy Sącz Municipal Council adopted a new local development plan. The plan stipulated that a public road was to be constructed on the applicant’s property. 4. On 25 March 2011 the applicant formally requested the Municipal Council to alter the local development plan and to adopt a different location for the future road. The Municipal Council refused this request in a resolution adopted on 28 April 2011. 5. On 18 May 2011 the applicant filed a complaint with the Cracow Regional Administrative Court against the resolution of 18 May 2010. She alleged, inter alia, that the local development plan had unlawfully designated part of her property for a future road. She argued that such a designation resulted in restrictions on developing her property and the reduction in its value. This amounted to a breach of her property rights. 6. The Cracow Regional Administrative Court on 18 November 2011 dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that the local development plan constituted an interference with the applicant’s property rights which, however, was justified by the public-interest considerations. The plan did not affect the core of the applicant’s property rights since she retained the possibility to use and to dispose of the property. With regard to the alleged reduction in the value of the property, the court noted that the applicant could have pursued her compensation claim under section 36 of the 2003 Act. 7. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. She argued, inter alia, that the Regional Administrative Court had erroneously applied the provisions of the 2003 Act. In this respect she submitted that the local development plan had deprived her of the possibility to develop her property and resulted in the reduction of its value. The applicant further alleged that the municipality had not adopted an alternative, less onerous, proposal for the location of the road. 8. On 1 June 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her cassation appeal. It concurred with the lower court that the location of a road retained by the municipality had been the most favourable to the applicant’s interests. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the interference with the applicant’s property rights had not been excessive since only part of her property had been designated for a road while the remaining part could be developed. 9. The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 24 August 2012. 10. From 1 January 1985 to 31 December 1994 questions of land development were governed by the Law of 12 July 1984 on Local Planning. Under this law owners of properties to be expropriated in the future were not entitled to any form of compensation for damage resulting from restrictions on the use of their property or the reduction in its value originating in expropriations to be carried out at an undetermined future date. 11. On 7 July 1994 a new Law on Local Planning was enacted (“the 1994 Act”). It entered into force on 1 January 1995. 12. Section 36 of the 1994 Act created for local authorities a number of obligations towards owners whose properties were designated for expropriation at an undetermined future date under land development plans adopted by the competent municipal authorities. The municipalities were obliged to buy such property, replace it with other land within six months of an owner’s request, or provide compensation for the damage caused by the designation. 13. However, pursuant to section 68 § 1 of the 1994 Act, these obligations and the corresponding claims of the owners applied only to plans adopted after the 1994 Act had entered into force, i.e. to plans adopted by local authorities after 1 January 1995. 14. Pursuant to the 1994 Act, plans adopted before its entry into force were to expire on 31 December 1999. In 1999 an amendment to the 1994 Act was adopted under which the validity of such plans was extended for a further two years until 31 December 2001. Again, on 21 December 2001, Parliament passed a law amending the 1994 Act which extended until the end of 2002 the validity of the land development plans adopted before 1 January 1995. 15. On 27 March 2003 a new Law on Local Planning was enacted (“the 2003 Act”). It entered into force on 11 July 2003 and repealed the 1994 Act. Under section 87 of the 2003 Act, all local plans adopted before 1 January 1995 remained valid, but not beyond 31 December 2003. 16. Compensation entitlements for owners, provided for by the 1994 Act, were in essence maintained by the 2003 Act. Pursuant to section 36 of the latter Act, when, following the adoption of a new local land development plan, the use of property in the manner provided for by a previous plan had become impossible or had been restricted, it was open to the owner to claim compensation from the municipality for actual damage sustained, or to request the municipality to buy the plot or its part. These claims may be also satisfied by the provision of an alternative property to the owner by the municipality. Any litigation which might arise in this respect between local authorities and owners could be pursued before the civil courts.