FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 34659/97
by Maria PASZKOWSKA-POŚLAD
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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 October 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
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 Paszkowska-Poślad, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Środa Wielkopolska.
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. 34659/97
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 August 1990 the Oleśnica District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired the entire estate left by her parents.
On 27 June in 1994 the applicant obtained a valuation report confirming that the value of the property abandoned by her family beyond the Bug River amounted to 1,529,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of 1994.
On 19 December 1994 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s father had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
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.
On 8 May 2008 the applicant informed the Court that on 5 February 2008 the Dolnośląski Governor (Wojewoda) issued a decision confirming, according to the relevant provisions of 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”), that she had the right to compensation amounting to 20% of the current value of the original property, i.e. PLN 67,030.
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