FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 7995/02
by Maria MICHALIK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2000,
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 Maria Michalik, is a Polish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Rokitnica.
A.  Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court
(See E.G. v. Poland, no. 50425/99, §§ 2-5).
B.  The circumstances of case no. 7995/02
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.  The applicant’s attempts to recover compensation
On 5 November 1991 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired her late mother’s estate.
On 21 February 1992 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s mother had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Gliwice District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to enable her to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 20 May 1997 the authorities informed her that her claim had been entered in the relevant register as claim no. 1991 but its realisation depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims.
On 5 March 2003 the Mayor of Zabrze (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her mother, valued 44,134 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On an unspecified date the applicant acquired compensatory property from the State, valued at 25,000 PLN.
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).
2.  The Polish Government’s offer to secure the so-called “accelerated payment”
In November 2005, following the friendly settlement concluded in the Broniowski case (see, Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement, [GC], no.31443/06, ECHR 2005-IX) and the entry into force of the Law of 8 July 2005 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”), a delegation of the Government visited the Court’s Registry and inspected the case files of all “Bug River” cases. The purpose of the Government’s mission was to select a group of applicants in respect of whom, on account of their age, health or difficult personal situation, the Government were prepared to secure an accelerated implementation of their right to compensation as defined by the July 2005 Act. Their initiative was aimed at the implementation of the general measures indicated in the Broniowski merits judgment and of the commitments undertaken in the friendly settlement concluded in the pilot case (see Broniowski, cited above, § 194 and the third and fourth operative provisions of the judgment; and also Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 31).
By a letter of 16 February 2006 the Government supplied the Court with the names of 50 applicants chosen by them for inclusion in the so-called “accelerated payment procedure” on the basis of the above-mentioned criteria. The applicant was included in the list of such persons.
On 14 June 2006 the Government submitted a document setting out their “plan of action” for payment of compensation and explaining to the applicants concerned the requirements and formalities that had to be satisfied by them in order to receive payment, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the July 2005 Act. The Act introduced a ceiling of 20% of the original property’s current value on compensation recoverable by Bug River claimants.
On 12 August 2006 the applicant accepted the Government’s offer. However, she did not withdraw her application lodged with the Court in so far as it concerned the remaining 80% of her claim for compensation.
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	President