FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 19515/06 by Konstanty CHOMIAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2006,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure and to adjourn its consideration of applications deriving from the same systemic problem identified in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96),

Having regard to the decisions to strike the applications Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (no. 50003/99) and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (no. 11208/02) out of the Court ’ s list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Konstanty C homiak , is a Polish national who was born in 19 24 and lives in Warszawa.

A. Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court

(See E.G. v. Poland , no. 50425/99, §§ 2-5) .

B . Particular circumstances of case no. 19515/06

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 30 December 1989 the Otwock District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had inherited the entire estate left by his sister.

On 21 November 2001 the Siedlce Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant and his sister had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River .

The applicant ’ s attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. The only possibility of enforcing the claim was to participate in competitive bids for the sale of State property. However, the State authorities throughout Poland officially acknowledged the acute shortage of State-owned land designated for the realisation of the Bug River claims.

This fact and the fact that at the material time it was the authorities ’ common practice to desist from organising auctions for Bug River claimants or to openly deny them the opportunity to enforce their entitlement through the statutory bidding procedure was established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski , cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176).

On 27 June 2007 the Mazowiecki Governor ( Wojewoda ) issued a decision. He refused to confirm that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by his family. On 13 February 2008 the State Treasury upheld this decision. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether he had lodged an appeal against this decision with the administrative court.

C . Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims

(See E.G. v. Poland , no. 50425 /99, §§ 16-17 ) .

COMPLAINT

(See E.G. v. Poland , no. 50425 /99, § 18 ) .

THE LAW

(See E.G. v. Poland , no. 50425 /99, §§ 19-29 ) .

For these reasons, the Cour t unanimously

1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;

2. Decides to close the pilot-judgment procedure applied in respect of the Bug River applications in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (no. 31443/96).

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President