CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } Published on 4 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35568/18 Alicja WOZOWICZ against Poland lodged on 16 July 2018 communicated on 13 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Case overview The application concerns the fact that since January 2009 the applicant’s land in Ropczyce has been de facto occupied, first by a State road construction company and subsequently by a public road, in the absence of any expropriation decision or compensation. Expropriation proceedings in this respect have been ongoing since 2006. A road and a roundabout were constructed on the applicant’s land. On 23 January 2012 the Podkarpacki Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision authorised the utilisation of that infrastructure. Proceedings for expropriation On 10 October 2006 the Podkarpacki Governor ordered the expropriation of the applicant’s land (no. 1180/33) and granted her compensation of PLN   298,672 (approximately EUR 74,700). The applicant appealed, disagreeing with the method for calculating compensation. On 9 September 2008 the Minister of Infrastructure quashed that decision and remitted the case for review. On 7 April 2011 the Podkarpacki Governor issued a new expropriation decision and granted the applicant compensation in the amount of PLN   446,129 (approximately EUR 111,500). The applicant appealed, again disagreeing with the method for calculating compensation. On 26 October 2011 the Minister of Infrastructure quashed this decision and remitted the case for review. On 24 October 2012 the Podkarpacki Governor discontinued the expropriation proceedings, holding that the road had been constructed and its use authorised by the decision issued on 23 January 2012 by the Podkarpacki Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision . That, in the Governor’s view, rendered the expropriation proceedings pointless. On 28 February 2013 the Minister of Infrastructure quashed this decision and remitted the case for review. On 30 April 2014 the Podkarpacki Governor issued another expropriation decision and granted the applicant compensation in the amount of PLN 482,801 (approximately EUR 120,700). On 7 October 2014 the Minister of Infrastructure quashed this decision and remitted the case for review. On 18 October 2017 the Podkarpacki Governor issued another expropriation decision and granted the applicant compensation in the amount of PLN 535,515 (approximately EUR 134,000). The applicant appealed against this decision, questioning the calculation method and submitting that the compensation offered constituted only 50% of the market value of the property in question. The expropriation proceedings are ongoing. It appears that the compensation awarded to the applicant has not been paid to her. Proceedings concerning the length of the proceedings for expropriation On 22 October 2016 the applicant lodged with the Prime Minister a complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Governor. It appears that no decision was issued in reply. Proceedings for the authorisation of the land’s occupation On 15 November 2006 the Podkarpacki Governor allowed the General Director of Public Roads and Motorways to occupy the applicant’s land with a view to starting construction work. On 12 March 2007 the Minister of Construction upheld that decision. On 30 January 2018 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both above-mentioned decisions. On 15 July 2008 the Podkarpacki Governor issued a new decision, allowing the General Director of Public Roads and Motorways to occupy the applicant’s property with a view to starting construction work. This decision became final on 7 January 2009. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the fact that the proceedings concerning the expropriation of the applicant’s land in Ropczyce have been ongoing since 2006, and that the applicant raises a complaint about the unreasonable length of these proceedings,   (a)     has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Wcisło and Cabaj v. Poland , nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13, 8 November 2018, Siermiński v. Poland , no. 53339/09, 2 December 2014; Grabiński v. Poland no. 43702/02, 17 October 2006; Koss v. Poland , no. 52495/99, 28 March 2006; and Kaniewski v. Poland , no. 8049/02, 8 November 2005)?   (b)     was the length of the administrative proceedings in question in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Siermiński v. Poland , no. 53339/09, 2   December 2014)?   2.     In view of the fact that, since 2006, the applicant’s land has been under de facto occupation by the public authorities and that she has not received any compensation for that occupation,   (a)     has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   (b)     has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Barbara Wiśniewska v.   Poland , no.   9072/02, 29 November 2011)?