Fundamento destacado: 35. Una injerencia en el derecho de propiedad no solo debe perseguir, tanto en los hechos como en principio, un fin legítimo de interés general, sino que también debe existir una relación razonable de proporcionalidad entre los medios empleados y el fin que se pretende alcanzar con cualquier medida aplicada por el Estado, incluidas las medidas diseñadas para controlar el uso de la propiedad individual. Este requisito se expresa en la noción de un equilibrio justo entre las exigencias del interés general de la comunidad y las exigencias de la protección de los derechos fundamentales de la persona (Hutten-Czapska c. Polonia [GC], n.º 35014/97, § 167, CEDH 2006 – VIII).
[Traducción de LP]
35. Not only must an interference with the right of property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a “legitimate aim” in the “general interest”, but there must also be a reasonable relation of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measures applied by the State, including measures designed to control the use of the individual’s property. That requirement is expressed by the notion of a “fair balance” that must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 167, ECHR 2006-VIII).
[Idioma original]
CASE OF WYSZYŃSKI v. POLAND
(Application no. 66/12)
In the case of Wyszyński v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Marko Bošnjak, President,
Péter Paczolay,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Alena Poláčková,
Erik Wennerström,
Raffaele Sabato,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to: the application (no. 66/12) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Antoni Wyszyński (“the applicant”), on 29 December 2011; the decision to give notice to the Polish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1 March 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant compensation for a tenant who had occupied his flat without a valid legal title, which the applicant claimed amounted to interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Poznań. He was represented by Mr A. Zielonacki, a lawyer practising in Poznań.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
5. The applicant is the owner of several flats situated in the same building in Poznań. The present case concerns one of the flats, no. 11.
6. The flat had been occupied by a tenant, R.S., who, for several years failed to pay the rent and service charges.
[Continúa…]
