CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25274/18 Slawomir DETKO against Poland lodged on 21 May 2018 communicated on 10 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in so far as the applicant has been restricted in the use of his real property which is classified as a historical monument. The application also raises an issue under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the length of the administrative proceedings regarding the property’s expropriation. In 2007 the applicant bought from the State Railways Company (“PKP”) a right of perpetual use of a plot of land in Legnica, with an ownership of a building situated there and requiring major renovation. The applicant intended to renovate the building with the aim of dividing it into apartments for sale. In 2019 his perpetual use of the land became, by the force of law, ownership. On 15 September 2008 the Dolnośląski Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments listed the applicants’ building in the register of historic monuments (decision upheld by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage on 19 October 2009; appeal dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court on 17 March 2010). As a result, the applicant could not implement his intended apartment project, and he had to maintain the original design of the building and the nearby wall, and protect them from degradation under the pain of a fine or prison sentence. The applicant instituted several sets of proceedings in the attempt to have his property bought out, exchanged or expropriated by the State. The relevant decisions were issued by the Supreme Administrative Court on 27 October 2017 and by the Dolnośląski Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments on 7 June 2017 and on 18 August 2022. Some of these proceedings appear to be on-going. The applicant’s complaint about the inactivity of the administrative authority was to no avail (Wroclaw Regional Administrative Court’s decision of 25 October 2023). On 7 July 2016 the Dolnośląski Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments ordered the applicant to carry out conservation works to protect the building from water infiltrations and other negative impacts of the weather (decision upheld by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage on 21 October 2016). On 6 April 2020 the Dolnośląski Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments fined the applicant 7,500 Polish zlotys (approximately 1,875 euros) for failure to carry out conservation works and ordering him to undertake such works within a specified deadline. On 27 December 2023 the Legnica Police charged the applicant with non-compliance with the Construction Law for, inter alia , failure to maintain the safe use of the building and conduct the required periodic technical check-ups. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the use of his property has been restricted following its listing as a historic monument and that the local authority has, on several occasions, refused to acquire or to expropriate his property. In this respect, he claims that the proceedings regarding expropriation can only be instituted on the motion of an administrative authority, not on the request of an affected individual, and that, moreover, the State has no obligation to take over a historic monument, even when the private owner is financially unable to ensure the building’s maintenance. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the two sets of administrative proceedings concerning his application for expropriation. In particular, the applicant stresses that, under the applicable law, such proceedings cannot be the subject of a complaint about the authority’s inactivity. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Potomska and Potomski v. Poland , no. 33949/05, §§ 72, 75, 78-80, 29 March 2011)? In particular, the parties are asked to address this question in the light of the following elements of the case: (i)   listing of the applicant’s property as a historic monument; (ii)   refusal of the local authority to acquire or to expropriate the applicant’s property; (iii)   impossibility to have the proceedings regarding expropriation instituted on the request of an affected individual; and (iv)   lack of provision in the domestic law requiring the State to take over a historic monument, where the private owner is financially unable to ensure the monument’s maintenance.   2.     Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?