FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32023/02
by Marian BEDNAREK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and Fatoş Aracı, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2002,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marian Bednarek, was a Polish national who was born in 1924 and lived in Łódź. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was subjected to forced labour during the Second World War on the territory of Poland occupied at that time by German forces. For five years he worked in various factories in Łodź, which produced, inter alia, ammunition and spare parts for various military equipment.
In 1999 he wrote to the Cabinet of the Council of Ministers complaining that under the regulations concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation he was not entitled to compensation for his work carried out during the German occupation of Poland. He submitted that the work amounted to forced labour, that he had been working twelve‑hour shifts, that the factory, due to the military significance of its production, was closely supervised by Gestapo and that severe penalties were imposed for the slightest disobedience.
In a reply of 19 May 1999 he was informed that persons in his situation were not entitled to any compensation or assistance under the regulations concerning the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation. It was further stated that certain German companies and banks were envisaging the creation of a special new fund for victims of Nazi persecution. He also wrote to the Polish‑German Reconciliation Foundation.
In a letter of 9 December 1999 the Foundation informed him about the categories of victims entitled to compensation payment. As to the deportation requirement, it was met by the following categories: persons deported from the territory of the pre-war Republic of Poland to the territory of the German Reich (to the exclusion of the territory of the Czech Republic); persons deported from the pre-war Polish territory to territories under German occupation, but outside its administrative borders (to the exclusion of territory of the Generalgouvernement) and persons assigned to carry out forced labour in concentration camps, and Polenlagers in Silesia.
On 27 April 2001 the applicant submitted to the Foundation his request for compensation. According to the documents he submitted with his request, from 31 December 1940 until 19 January 1945 he had worked for three different German factories in Łodź.
On 4 April 2002 the Foundation Verification Commission refused to pay him financial assistance, having regard to the documents he had submitted. It considered that it transpired from these documents that he had performed forced labour, but that he had not complied with the deportation requirement. It further explained that only persons who had on 16 February 1999 resided in Poland and had been subjected to forced labour and deported to the German Reich within its borders of 1939, or to other territories occupied by Germany could obtain financial assistance. As he had not been deported, he was not entitled to payment.
The applicant appealed.
On 3 July 2002 the Appeal Verification Commission informed the applicant that under Article 11 of the Law on the Creation of the Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” he was not eligible for compensation payment. It further held that under Article 6 of the Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation and the Polish‑German Reconciliation Foundation no appeal was available against this decision.
In a letter of the same date, attached to this decision, the Appeal Commission observed that until 31 August 1939 the applicant had been living in Łódź, and afterwards, during the war, he had been working there. Consequently, the deportation requirement was not met.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained without invoking any Articles of the Convention that the decisions of the Foundation, refusing to grant him compensation for his forced labour, had been unfair and that they could not be appealed against. He argued that the exclusion of persons who had been subjected to forced labour without having been deported from the territories of occupied Poland to the German Reich from the category of persons entitled to even nominal compensation was not justified. Both categories of workers had been forced to work for German industry and suffered serious, sometimes extreme, hardship.
He submitted that the provisions of the 2000 German Act and of the Foundation by-laws defining deportation as a condition of eligibility for financial assistance had been unclear and had given rise to confusion.
The applicant complained in essence that the decisions given in his case had not been not subject to judicial review in Poland.
THE LAW
On 26 September 2005 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 24 March 2006 the President of the Chamber granted leave to the German Government to intervene as a third party in the Court's proceedings under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
On 22 March 2006 the applicant's widow informed the Court that the applicant had died. The Court requested the applicant's widow to indicate whether an heir of the applicant wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. On 10 April 2006 she informed the Court that she wished to withdraw the case.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant died and that no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1  that would require it to continue the proceedings by virtue of that provision.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Fatoş Aracı	Nicolas Bratza
	Deputy Registrar	President