FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

Application no. 22008/02 by Kry styna WIÅšNIEWSKA 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 26 May 2002,

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, Ms Krystyna Wiśniewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Radom .

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. 22008/02

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

On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Radom District Office ( UrzÄ…d Rejonowy ) to enable her to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River .

On 19 January 1993 the authorities informed her that her claim had been entered in the relevant register but its realisation depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims. It emerges from the document that the applicant is entitled to compensation.

On 27 July 2001 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. On 14 November 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ' s request to be exempted from court fees. In view of the amount of the court fees, she decided not to pursue the claim.

The applicant ' s subsequent 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).

The applicant did not produce any certificate or decision stating the current value of her claim. Nor did she inform the Court whether she had initiated proceedings under the Law on the realisation of the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State ( Ustawa o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego ) (“the July 2005 Act”) in order to obtain compensation for the Bug River property.

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 Court 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 Presid ent