CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 septembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE Application no. 9311/08 by Maria KOMIAGO 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 24 January 2008, 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 Komiago, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Olsztyn. 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. 9311/08 The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 15 March 2001 the applicant and other members of her family obtained a certificate issued by the Mayor of Olsztyn ( Prezydent Miasta ) confirming that she had the right to obtain half of the compensation for the property abandoned by her family in the territories beyond the Bug River, valued at 141,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). On unspecified dates in 2002 and 2003 the applicant participated in competitive bids. Her attempts to acquire State property were unsuccessful. 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 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   President