Gość: ajax
IP: *.ite.waw.pl
27.01.04, 10:50
Strasbourg, Trybunal Praw Czlowieka
Pierwsze przesluchanie w sprawie lamania praw czlowieka w Polsce m.in. przez
ustawe "o ochronie praw lokatorow ... ". Precedens o waznych skutkach dla
systemu prawa lokalowego w Polsce.
Tuesday 27 January 2004
Chamber 9.30 a.m.
Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (no 35014/97) Hearing on the merits
The application concerns the scheme of rent control in Poland. The scheme,
which originated in laws adopted under the former communist regime, imposes a
number of restrictions on landlords’ rights. Those restrictions consist in,
for instance, the impossibility of raising rents to cover expenses incurred
by landlords in connection with the maintenance of property. The applicant,
Maria Hutten-Czapska, is a French national of Polish origin. She was born in
1931 and lives in Andresy, France. She owns a house and a plot of land in
Gdynia, Poland. The house was built in 1936 as a family home and originally
consisted of a duplex apartment, a basement and attic. During the Second
World War, German Army officers lived in the house and, in May 1945, Red Army
officers took possession. On 19 May 1945 the first-floor part of the duplex
apartment was assigned to A.Z. In June 1945 Gdynia Town Court (Sąd Grodzki)
ordered that the house be returned to the applicant’s parents. They began
renovation of the house but, shortly afterwards, were ordered to leave. In
October 1945 A.Z. moved into the house. The house was taken under state
management after the entering into force, on 13 February 1946, of a decree
giving the Polish authorities power to assign flats in privately-owned
buildings to particular tenants. The applicant’s parents tried unsuccessfully
to regain possession of their property. On 1 August 1974 a new regime on the
state management of housing entered into force, the so-called “special lease
scheme” (szczególny tryb najmu). On 8 July 1975 the Gdynia Mayor issued a
decision allowing W.P. to exchange the flat he leased under this scheme for
the ground-floor flat in the applicant’s house. The decision was signed by a
civil servant who was subordinate to W.P. In the 1990s the applicant tried to
have that decision declared null and void but only succeeded in obtaining a
decision declaring that it had been issued contrary to the law. On 2 January
1976 the house was again taken under state management (przejęcie w zarząd
państwowy). On 3 August 1988 Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ruled that,
after the death of A.Z., her daughter and son-in-law had inherited the right
to lease the first-floor flat in the applicant’s house. On 18 September 1990
the court declared that the applicant had inherited her parents’ property
and, in October, she took over the management of the house. In 1991 W.P.
filed an action for repossession against the applicant and, on 28 April 1992,
the applicant was ordered to surrender to W.P. possession of the basement,
boiler-room, laundry and drying room. The applicant subsequently brought
several unsuccessful sets of proceedings – civil and administrative – to
regain possession of her property and to relocate the tenants. The Polish
Constitutional Court, in three successive judgments (of 12 January 2000, 10
October 2000 and 2 October 2002), declared the legal provisions that reduced
any possibility of raising “controlled rent” to cover the necessary expenses
for the maintenance of property incompatible with the constitutional
principle of the protection of property rights. However, new legislation
dealing with the matter has not yet been enacted. The applicant complains
that the situation created by the implementation of the laws imposing the
fixed and totally inadequate rent amounts to a continuing violation of her
property rights. She submits that she has neither been able to regain
possession and use of her property nor derive any income from it. She relies
on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.
In view of the growing number of similar applications against Poland, the
case has been considered the “pilot case” for the purposes of establishing
whether the impugned system of rent control is compatible with the
requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.