The case concerned the demolition of makeshift dwellings occupied by five Roma families of Romanian origin in Wrocław, Poland. The applicants had been living on municipally owned land without legal title. In 2013, local construction authorities initiated administrative proceedings and issued demolition orders, citing the dwellings’ illegality and failure to meet safety standards. These decisions were not formally notified to the applicants, who were neither consulted nor involved in the procedures. In July 2015, the dwellings were demolished without warning, and the applicants lost access to their personal belongings and animals.
The Court found that although the dwellings did not qualify as ‘homes’ under the material scope of Article 8, the demolition had serious consequences for the applicants’ private and family life, engaging the protection of Article 8 ECHR. The applicants’ status as victims was upheld under Article 34, despite their irregular occupation and absence from the domestic proceedings.
The Polish Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, notably the reopening of administrative proceedings. However, the Court rejected this objection, noting the lack of domestic case-law proving that such remedies would have offered effective redress or allowed the applicants to invoke their Convention rights.
Crucially, the Court emphasised the absence of procedural safeguards: the applicants were not notified of the demolition orders, had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings, and were deprived of any proportionality assessment by an independent authority. Although some offers of assistance and alternative accommodation had been made, the manner in which the demolition was executed caused distress and disrupted their family life.
The Court examined whether the authorities mitigated the effects of the demolition, including by offering alternative accommodation to the applicants. It found that the applicants had received timely and seemingly adequate offers of alternative housing. However, the Court noted that the applicants’ reluctance to accept these offers contributed to their immediate homelessness after the demolition. At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the authorities’ lack of clear and serious warnings meant the demolition came as a surprise to the applicants, who did not expect it to occur. This contradiction—holding the applicants partly responsible for their homelessness despite the demolition’s unexpected nature—was highlighted as problematic. The Court also considered that this emphasis on the applicants’ conduct may have influenced the modest amount of just satisfaction awarded to each household under Article 41 (5,000 euros), although this remains uncertain.
The Court concluded that the interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 8 was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards and was therefore not necessary in a democratic society. No separate issue was found under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), as the core procedural failure was addressed under Article 8.
