FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 844/05
by Andrzej ROMAN and Others
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 8 December 2004,
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 applicants, Mr Andrzej Roman, Mr Edmund Roman, Mrs Irena Martyńska and Mrs Ryszarda Gołaszewska, are Polish nationals who were born in 1949, 1933, 1947 and 1954 respectively and live in Warsaw.
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. 844/05
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 May 1998 the Warszawa District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) issued a certificate confirming that the applicants had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 424,390 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 19 December 2001 the applicants lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. They sought full compensation for the original property. The action was unsuccessful. On 23 August 2002 the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed their claim. On 10 October 2003 the Warszawa Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld this judgment. On 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with the applicants' cassation appeal as no issue of general importance was involved. The courts found, in particular, that material damage caused by the defective operation of the Bug River legislation could not in reality be higher than, or even equal to, the full value of the original property.
The applicants' numerous 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 applicants did not inform the Court whether they 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	President