CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 33753/96                       by Adam OBODYNSKI                       against Poland           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 3 January 1996 by Adam OBODYNSKI against Poland and registered on 13 November 1996 under file No. 33753/96;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1947, is retired and resides in Warsaw.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   Particular circumstances of the case         In November 1984 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Warszawa-Praga District Court (S*d Rejonowy), claiming repossession of an apartment which he co-owned with his wife, and from which he had allegedly been unlawfully expelled in January 1984.         In a judgment of 11 February 1994 the Warszawa-Praga District Court ordered the repossession of the apartment co-owned by the applicant from which he had been expelled by his wife in 1984.   On 29 September 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) confirmed the judgment which, accordingly, became final.         Subsequently, upon the defendant's request, the Minister of Justice filed an extraordinary appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy).   On 7 July 1995 the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim, considering that the action for repossession had become devoid of purpose as in 1987 the defendant had sold the apartment concerned.   Relevant domestic law           Article 344 of the Civil Code provides that a possessor can claim repossession before a court against a person who has deprived him of possession, regardless of whether he is a bona fide possessor or whether the factual possession is in conformity with the law.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the judgment of the Supreme Court by quashing the judgment ordering the repossession deprived him of his apartment and thus of his property.         He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted ten years and eight months and thus exceeded a reasonable time.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention that the judgment of the Supreme Court deprived him of his property.         Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention reads:         "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful       enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of       his possessions except in the public interest and subject       to the conditions provided for by law and by the general       principles of international law.         The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way       impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it       deems necessary to control the use of property in       accordance with the general interest or to secure the       payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."         The Commission observes that in the present case the applicant was involved as a plaintiff in the civil proceedings, claiming repossession of the apartment which he had co-owned with his wife.         The Commission further notes that although the refusal to order repossession of the apartment was pronounced by a court judgment and therefore by an act of a State organ, it was based on the provisions of the Civil Code.   The Supreme Court quashed the final judgment ordering the repossession and dismissed the applicant's claim, considering that the action for repossession had become devoid of purpose as the defendant had sold the property in 1987 and it was therefore no longer in her possession; thus the legal conditions under which an action for repossession could be successful were not met.   The Commission recalls its case-law, according to which judicial decisions under legal provisions governing private law relations between individuals and which, provide for one person to surrender a possession to another, do not infringe the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (No. 12462/86, Dec. 13.7.87, D.R. 53, p. 234).   The impugned judgment, stemming from general civil law rules governing the protection of factual possession and the legal requirements under which such protection can be granted by the courts cannot be considered contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).         The Commission accordingly does not find that there has been any infringement of the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions or that he has been deprived of his possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).         It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant further complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the repossession proceedings exceeded a reasonable time.         The Commission recalls that Poland recognised the competence of the Commission to receive individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993".   The Commission therefore considers that the period to be considered begins only on 1 May 1993, when Poland's recognition of the right of individual petition took effect (cf. Eur. Court HR, Foti and others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53).         The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.         For these reasons, the Commission,         DECIDES TO ADJOURN   the examination of the applicant's complaint       concerning the length of the civil proceedings,         unanimously,       DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.           M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE         Secretary                                   President   to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber