## Facts

- Jerzy Broniowski, a Polish national, inherited a “Bug River” entitlement to compensation for family property lost after World War II in territories no longer within Poland.
- Poland’s postwar compensation scheme promised claimants a “right to credit” against state property but, in practice, many claimants could not obtain effective compensation.
- In 1996, Broniowski applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) due to the failure to implement his entitlement.
- In 2004, the Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, attributing it to a systemic malfunction in domestic legislation and practice affecting a wider class of Bug River claimants; the Court indicated that Poland should secure implementation of the property right for remaining claimants or provide equivalent redress.
- The Court reserved the issue of just satisfaction under Article 41, anticipating resolution through agreement and/or domestic general measures implementing the 2004 judgment.
- Following the 2004 judgment, Poland adopted legislative and administrative measures intended to address Bug River claims, including mechanisms for compensation or equivalent redress.
- In 2005, the parties concluded a friendly-settlement agreement providing compensation to Broniowski and referencing the broader remedial measures adopted domestically.
- The Grand Chamber issued a friendly-settlement judgment in 2005 to determine whether to accept the settlement and discontinue the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ friendly-settlement agreement satisfied Article 39 of the Convention, including the requirement that it be based on respect for human rights.
2. Whether, in light of the settlement and Poland’s post-2004 general measures, the application should be struck out under Article 37 § 1, or whether respect for human rights required continued examination.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber accepted the friendly settlement as consistent with respect for human rights within the meaning of Article 39.
- The Court struck the application out of its list under Article 37, concluding that it was no longer justified to continue examination of the case.
- In doing so, the Court treated the applicant’s individual claim as resolved by the settlement and took account of the general measures adopted to address the systemic problem identified in the 2004 judgment.

## Legal Principles

- The European Court of Human Rights may accept a friendly settlement only if satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 39).
- A case may be struck out when the matter has been resolved or when it is otherwise no longer justified to continue the examination, provided that respect for human rights does not require continuation (Article 37 § 1).
- In the aftermath of a judgment identifying a systemic violation, the Court may consider both (i) individual redress to the applicant and (ii) domestic general measures addressing the structural deficiency when deciding whether to strike out the case.

## Conclusion

The Court accepted the parties’ settlement and discontinued the proceedings, finding that the applicant received adequate individual redress and that domestic measures addressing the broader Bug River compensation problem were sufficient such that respect for human rights did not require further adjudication.


Broniowski v. Poland (Broniowski II), App. No. 31443/96, 2005-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. (Sept. 28, 2005)