The State’s obligation to compensate for non-execution of court decisions
JUDGMENT
Żuk v. Poland (no. 48286/11)30-5-2017
SUMMARY
Non-execution of court decision. The municipality did not execute irrevocable court order to transfer property to the applicant. The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s fair trial and property rights.
PROVISION
Article 6 § 1
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Danuta Bronisława Żuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin (Poland).
The case concerned Ms Żuk’s claim to purchase two plots of state-owned land and the non-enforcement of a final judgment in her favour with regard to that claim.
By an administrative decision of November 1989 the Szczecin Town Council held that Ms Żuk’s husband was entitled to purchase plots of land owned by the State Treasury. The Town Council was obliged to sell the land to him on the basis of that decision. This entitlement was confirmed in another administrative decision in March 1990.
However, the Szczecin municipality refused to transfer ownership of the land to Ms Żuk and her husband as the land they wished to claim had been designated for non-agricultural purposes under a new land development plan. Notably, on 16 May 1994 the municipality had adopted a local land development plan which provided that land situated within the administrative limits of the municipality was designated for non-agricultural purposes.
In April 2003, Ms Żuk and her husband lodged a civil action against the Szczecin municipality requesting the court to oblige it to sell the land to which they were entitled on the basis of the 1989 decision. The Szczecin District Court dismissed the claim. However, in September 2004 Ms Żuk and her husband were successful on appeal to the Szczecin Regional Court which allowed the claim and obliged the municipality to sell them the land concerned. That court notably found that the 1989 administrative decision created a right to buy the plot of land concerned and that the legal reform of 1990 did not affect the validity of Ms Żuk’s claim. This decision, which became final, was not implemented and, in 2008, Ms Żuk and her husband initiated further civil proceedings seeking to have their rights realised. These proceedings were unsuccessful.
In its judgment on the merits of 6 October 2015 the Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention as regards pecuniary damage.
Just satisfaction: EUR 40,000 (pecuniary damage).
