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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s99C28F9F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7B84F9F3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s44D6A2C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sB993B0A7 { height:16.15pt } .s81534B18 { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } FOURTH SECTION DECISION PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE Application no. 50425/99 by E.G. against Poland and 175 other Bug River applications 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 application no. 50425/99 lodged by E.G. on 16   December 1998 and to the remaining 175 applications listed in the annex to this decision, 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 1.     The main applicant, Mr E.G. (“the applicant”), is a Polish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chełm. The names and personal details of the remaining 175 applicants (“the applicants”) and the facts pertaining to their cases are presented in the attached statements setting out the particular circumstances of each case. A.     Historical background to Bug River cases before the Court 2.     Before the Second World War either the applicants or their families owned real property in the eastern provinces of pre-war Poland, the so ‑ called “Borderlands” ( Kresy ). Those regions included large areas of present-day Belarus and Ukraine and territories around Vilnius in what is now Lithuania. In September 1939 the regions were invaded by the USSR. 3.     Following the end of the war, when the Polish eastern border was redrawn westwards and fixed along the Bug River, the Borderlands acquired the name of the “territories beyond the Bug River” ( ziemie zabużańskie ). 4.     On an unspecified date following 9 September 1944 the applicants and their families, like some 1,240,000 other Polish citizens who were at various dates from 1944 to 1953 subject to repatriation from the territories beyond the Bug River, were repatriated to Poland under the provisions of the so-called “Republican Agreements” ( umowy republikańskie ). 5.     A more detailed account of the historical background and the relevant provisions of the Republican Agreements and other related treaties and laws can be found in the Court's judgment in the pilot case of Broniowski v.   Poland (see, in particular, Broniowski v. Poland (merits) [GC], no.   31443/96, §§ 10-12 and 39-45, ECHR 2004-V). B.     Particular circumstances of case no. 50425/99 6.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 7.     On 21 November 1989 the applicant asked the Przemyśl District Office ( Urząd Rejonowy ) to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River. 8.     On 31 May 1990 the Chełm District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant's parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River. 9.     On 27 December 1990 the authorities informed him that the realisation of his claim depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims. 10.     On 7 November 1991 the Chełm District Court gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired the entire estate left by his mother. 11.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury ( Skarb Państwa ). He asked the first-instance court for an exemption from the court fees due for proceeding with his claim but his request was refused. On 10   September 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the first-instance decision in view of the manifest lack of any legal basis for the claim. The applicant desisted from pursuing his action. 12.     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 were established by the Court in the Broniowski judgment (see Broniowski , cited above, §§ 48-61, 69-87 and 168-176). 13.     On 3 February 2006 the applicant 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. 14.     On 28 November 2006 the Governor ( Wojewoda ) of Opole refused to admit evidence from a valuation report produced by the applicant since that document did not comply with the requirements laid down in the July 2005 Act. The applicant was also asked to rectify other procedural shortcomings and, in particular, to produce documentary evidence concerning his and his late parents' places of residence. The applicant appealed against the Governor's order but the appeal was rejected as inadmissible in law on 16 April 2007. 15.     On 6 December 2007 the applicant submitted a fresh valuation report. On 16   January 2008 the Governor again asked the applicant to produce documents concerning the places of residence. The proceedings are pending. C.     Relevant domestic law and practice in respect of Bug River claims 16.     A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the Bug River property is set out in the judgments delivered by the Court in the pilot case of Broniowski v. Poland (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, §§ 39-120, and Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 14-30, ECHR 2005-IX). 17.     The operation of the compensation scheme introduced by the   July   2005 Act is described in the Court's decisions given in the cases of Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, §§ 18-23, ECHR 2007-XIV, and Witkowska-Toboła v. Poland (dec.), no.   11208/02, §§   22 ‑ 27, 4 December 2007. COMPLAINT 18.     In all the cases the applicants in essence complained about the State's continued failure to secure the implementation of their right to compensation for the Bug River property in the period before the entry into force of the July 2005 Act and about the subsequent reduction of their compensatory entitlement to 20% of the original property's current value. They alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW A.     Application of the pilot-judgment procedure 19.     The present case, like some 190 similar cases currently pending before the Court at various stages of the procedure, had been examined in accordance with the pilot-judgment procedure following the judgment given by the Court in the Broniowski case (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, §§ 189 et seq.). The applicant's complaint originated in the same structural shortcoming found to have been at the root of the Court's finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the pilot case and defined as “a systemic problem connected with the malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice caused by the failure to set up an effective mechanism to implement the 'right to credit' of Bug River claimants” which “ha[d] affected and remain[ed] capable of affecting a large number of persons” (ibid.; see also the third operative provision of the judgment). 20.     In that connection, and having regard to the number of persons potentially affected by the systemic violation of the Convention, the Court directed that “the respondent State must, through appropriate legal measures and administrative practice, secure the implementation of the property right in question in respect of the remaining Bug River claimants or provide them with equivalent redress in lieu, in accordance with the principles of protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1” (ibid., § 194 and the fourth operative provision of the judgment). B.     Application of Article 37 of the Convention 21.     Article 37 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (b)     the matter has been resolved; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires. 2.     The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.” 22.     In the cases of Wolkenberg and Others and Witkowska ‑ Toboła (both cited above) the Court, having regard to the general compatibility of the compensation scheme introduced by the July 2005 Act with the principles of protection of property rights, in particular with the principles relating to compensation and to the effective functioning of that Act in practice, as well as to the availability of domestic remedies enabling Bug River claimants to recover compensation for any past material or non ‑ material prejudice suffered as a result of the previous defective operation of the domestic legislation, was satisfied that the issue giving rise to the Bug River cases had been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 23.     The Court held that the procedures under the July 2005 Act had provided the applicants and other Bug River claimants with relief at domestic level which made its further examination of their applications and of other similar applications no longer justified. In consequence, and finding no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights that would require the continued examination of the cases by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, §§ 60-77, and Witkowska ‑ Toboła , cited above, §§ 62-79). 24.     Having regard to the circumstances of the present cases, and to the fact that it is open to most of the applicants to avail themselves of the compensation scheme introduced by the July 2005 Act and that in the remaining cases the applicants have already satisfied their compensatory entitlement to the full extent defined by that Act, the Court finds no reason justifying a departure from the conclusion reached in the above-mentioned cases. Accordingly, the 176 applications under consideration should be struck out of the Court's list of cases. C.     Consequences for the application of the pilot-judgment procedure 25.     The issue giving rise to the Bug River cases has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and both the level of compensation available and the procedures under the July 2005 Act provided Bug River claimants with relief at domestic level. For that reason, as the Court has already held, its further examination of similar cases is no longer justified (see paragraphs 22-23 above, with further references). Having regard to the object and purpose of the pilot-judgment procedure (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, §§ 193-194; Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35; Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (merits) [GC], no.   35014/97, §§ 231-234, ECHR 2006-VIII; and Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, §§ 34-36), the Court wishes to consider the consequences of the above findings in the context of the continued application of this procedure. 26.     It notes that since the adoption of the striking-out decisions in the cases of Wolkenberg and Others and Witkowska-Toboła it has already delivered some 110 further individual summary decisions. The present “global” decision includes 176 Bug River cases concerning identical, repetitive complaints. Further applications are being lodged with the Court every month. As a result, the Court is being continually called upon to rule in cases where the Convention issue has been resolved at domestic level. 27.     In this context, the Court would reiterate that the pilot-judgment procedure is primarily designed to assist the Contracting States in fulfilling their role in the Convention system by resolving systemic or structural problems at national level, thereby securing to the persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms as required by Article 1 of the Convention, offering them more rapid redress but also, at the same time, making it unnecessary for the Court to adjudicate on large numbers of applications similar in substance which it would otherwise have to take to judgment (see Broniowski (friendly settlement), cited above, § 35, and Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 34). It is also to be recalled that the Court's principal task under the Convention is, as defined by Article 19 of the Convention, “to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto”. A requirement to deliver, continually, individual decisions in cases where there is no longer any live Convention issue cannot be said to be compatible with this task. Nor does this judicial exercise contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human rights protection under the Convention; indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the future the Court may wish to redefine its role in this respect and decline to examine such cases. 28.     Nor can it be ruled out that there may be cases before the Court where, after the Court has identified a systemic problem in its judgment, the respondent State delays the implementation of general measures beyond a reasonable time (see Broniowski (merits), cited above, §   198) and leaves the problem unresolved, thus generating repetitive Convention violations for a future indefinite time. In such circumstances, the Court will have no choice but to examine and take to judgment the remaining applications pending before it in order to trigger the execution process before the Committee of Ministers and to ensure the observance of the Convention at domestic level. 29.     However, although the general context of the pilot-judgment procedure plays an important role in the examination of the Broniowski follow-up cases, in which the Court used this procedural tool for the first time, its assessment and conclusions are confined to their specific circumstances. In particular, it is to be noted that the Court – after two final pilot judgments, one on the merits and one approving a friendly settlement in which the State undertook to implement the necessary general measures rapidly – in its own subsequent ruling established that “the matter has been resolved” (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, §§ 75-77, and paragraph 23 above). It also found that the domestic measures for offering Bug River claimants redress making up for an award under Article   41 were satisfactory (ibid., §§ 75-76). While it still remains for the Committee of Ministers to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, the execution of the Broniowski merits and friendly-settlement judgments and the discharge by the Polish State of its obligation to ensure the continued effective operation of the Bug River legislation, the Court's task under Article 19 of the Convention has been fulfilled. In these circumstances, the continued application of the pilot-judgment procedure is no longer justified. Consequently, the Court closes the pilot-judgment procedure applied in the Broniowski judgment of 22 June 2004 in respect of Bug River cases. This ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore the present applications to the list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, or to deal substantively with subsequent cases if the circumstances, in particular the future functioning of the compensation scheme under the July 2005 Act, so justify (see Wolkenberg and Others , cited above, § 77 in fine ). For these reasons, the Court unanimously 1.     Decides to strike the applications 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 Annex 175 Bug River cases List of applications 1. 34659/97 PASZKOWSKA-POŚLAD v. Poland 2. 39006/97 EJSMONT v. Poland 3. 49327/99 SOKOŁOWSKI v. Poland 4. 49592/99 PŁOTNICKI v. Poland 5. 51724/99 FILIPEK v. Poland 6. 62110/00 PRZYHORSKI v. Poland 7. 65705/01 STRUCKI v. Poland 8. 68759/01 ARCISZEWSKI v. Poland 9. 70364/01 FELIŃSKI v. Poland 10. 74068/01 GRUDYSZ v. Poland 11. 74233/01 SNARSKA v. Poland 12. 74551/01 TUKAŁŁO v. Poland 13. 78014/01 DŁUGOSZ v. Poland 14. 3269/02 SZEMIEL v. Poland 15. 4465/02 PELC v. Poland 16. 7537/02 JĘDRZEJUK v. Poland 17. 7995/02 MICHALIK v. Poland 18. 8019/02 SŁODOWNIK and MADZIAR v. Poland 19. 9459/02 KONWERSKI v. Poland 20. 10255/02 SZAFARCZUK v. Poland 21. 11118/02 STRÓZIK v. Poland 22. 11492/02 ZDANOWSKA v. Poland 23. 11631/02 ŁOPUSKI v. Poland 24. 12187/02 KĄTSKI and KĄTSKA v. Poland 25. 13852/02 WOŁOTKOWICZ v. Poland 26. 20308/02 JASIŃSKA v. Poland 27. 20830/02 DZIUBIŃSKA v. Poland 28. 21895/02 GĘBAL and Others v. Poland 29. 21967/02 ANACKI v. Poland 30. 22008/02 WIŚNIEWSKA v. Poland 31. 22961/02 RUSIECKA v. Poland 32. 23532/02 Adam KOGUT v. Poland 33. 23672/02 KALINECKA v. Poland 34. 23685/02 Ryszard KOGUT v. Poland 35. 23731/02 PROŚCIŃSKA v. Poland 36. 23950/02 MARCINKIEWICZ v. Poland 37. 24698/02 Eugeniusz and Ryszard DUBIELEWSKI v. Poland 38. 24952/02 Henryk and Adam KRZYŻANOWSKI v. Poland 39. 27029/02 FILIPOWICZ v. Poland 40. 27213/02 KOROWAJCZYK v. Poland 41. 27578/02 MAKARCZUK v. Poland 42. 28272/02 WĄS v. Poland 43. 28907/02 KURZAK v. Poland 44. 28950/02 WASZCZYŃSKI v. Poland 45. 32803/02 MAZUREK v. Pol 46. 33582/02 LACHOWICZ v. Poland 47. 37837/02 IDZIK v. Poland 48. 39760/02 PEŁCZYŃSKA v. Poland 49. 41771/02 MACH v. Poland 50. 42867/02 MAĆKAŁA-FELIKS v. Poland 51. 44346/02 HELON v. Poland 52. 299/03 FLOREK and OLĘDZKA v. Poland 53. 612/03 PODOBYĆKO v. Poland 54. 618/03 CZEKAŃSKI v. Poland 55. 776/03 DĄBROWSKI v. Poland 56. 780/03 CZESAK v. Poland 57. 785/03 MAKARCZYK v. Poland 58. 2687/03 MIKOŁAJCZAK v. Poland 59. 4609/03 CZECHOWSKI v. Poland 60. 5529/03 ZBOROWSKA v. Poland 61. 6798/03 CZERW v. Poland 62. 6879/03 LEŚKIEWICZ and Others v. Poland 63. 7366/03 ZYGMUNT v. Poland 64. 10237/03 JAZIENICKI v. Poland 65. 10645/03 LEDWOLD v. Poland 66. 11203/03 MACHOŃ v. Poland 67. 11767/03 WOJNICZ v. Poland 68. 13934/03 KAŚNICKA v. Poland 69. 17091/03 JANCZYSZYN v. Poland 70. 19846/03 TROJNAR and Others v. Poland 71. 22654/03 PRYGOŻY and UNUCZEK v. Poland 72. 24511/03 JUZWENKO v. Poland 73. 24586/03 SOKOŁOWSKI and Others v. Poland 74. 24896/03 GÓRSKA v. Poland 75. 26391/03 STEPKA v. Poland 76. 32403/03 POLIT v. Poland 77. 32417/03 PANASIUK v. Poland 78. 32974/03 KOŁTUNIUK v. Poland 79. 35049/03 KLESZCZ v. Poland 80. 38418/03 PAWŁOWSKA v. Poland 81. 40187/03 LENARTOWICZ v. Poland 82. 621/04 ŻELAŚKIEWICZ v. Poland 83. 1096/04 SKUPIEŃ v. Poland 84. 9056/04 KOZAKIEWICZ v. Poland 85. 13765/04 BURDZIAKOWSKI v. Poland 86. 21402/04 Waleria and Franciszek DĄBROWSKI v. Poland 87. 23922/04 PIATCZYC v. Poland 88. 25269/04 BUTKIEWICZ v. Poland 89. 26127/04 ZIELIŃSKA v. Poland 90. 27015/04 KUROCZYCKI v. Poland 91. 33048/04 WOLAŃSKI v. Poland 92. 34124/04 ŁOZOWSKI v. Poland 93. 38054/04 PALIJ v. Poland 94. 40191/04 KARBOWNIK v. Poland 95. 43655/04 Kazimierz JAWORSKI v. Poland 96. 43661/04 RYKAŁA v. Poland 97. 44797/04 WYRUCH v. Poland 98. 45433/04 PRZYBYLSKI v. Poland 99. 319/05 SAMUJŁO v. Poland 100. 844/05 ROMAN and Others v. Poland 101. 1557/05 DANISZEWSKI and Others v. Poland 102. 1611/05 WÓJCIK v. Poland 103. 3154/05 WALUK v. Poland 104. 3527/05 PILAROWSKA and Others v. Poland 105. 4105/05 MIKIELKA v. Poland 106. 4462/05 PROŃCZUK v. Poland 107. 9202/05 NERKOWSKA v. Poland 108. 13743/05 SKOTNICKA and Others v. Poland 109. 14612/05 OAKES v. Poland 110. 19329/05 BOLEK and MOŻDŻEŃ v. Poland 111. 20440/05 KWIATKIEWICZ and Others v. Poland 112. 21659/05 KOPIŃSKA v. Poland 113. 22261/05 SZEPAROWICZ v. Poland 114. 29919/05 PRASK v. Poland 115. 35420/05 JARUZELSKI v. Poland 116. 35958/05 KUMPIŃ v. Poland 117. 36973/05 ZALESKI v. Poland 118. 39260/05 PILCZUK v. Poland 119. 41566/05 HELMER v. Poland 120. 44640/05 KOŁARZYK v. Poland 121. 1047/06 R.B. v. Poland 122. 5737/06 HUBER v. Poland 123. 13392/06 GODLEWSKI v. Poland 124. 19045/06 LIPIŃSKA and Others v. Poland 125. 19515/06 CHOMIAK v. Poland 126. 22394/06 PAŁUBIŃSKA v. Poland 127. 22837/06 MINKO v. Poland 128. 23068/06 CHROBOT v. Poland 129. 27186/06 MROCZKOWSKA v. Poland 130. 29943/06 ADAMSKA v. Poland 131. 3976/07 GONET-GRABOWSKA v. Poland 132. 4330/07 JANCZAK v. Poland 133. 12213/07 JAREMKO v. Poland 134. 13140/07 CHOMYN v. Poland 135. 15495/07 GÓRAL and Others v. Poland 136. 16756/07 ZUBCZYŃSKA v. Poland 137. 17469/07 BADECKI v. Poland 138. 20588/07 ORŁOWSKA v. Poland 139. 21777/07 PIERARD v. Poland 140. 22805/07 SOROKO v. Poland 141. 26803/07 KRASZEWSKA-SZEFER v. Poland 142. 26966/07 MAJERANOWSKA v. Poland 143. 28986/07 CICHOCKA v. Poland 144. 31812/07 BARAN-MICHNIEWICZ v. Poland 145. 32303/07 BLACHARSKI v. Poland 146. 32648/07 BĄDZYŃSKI v. Poland 147. 32671/07 REISING and Others v. Poland 148. 33957/07 MIKULSKA v. Poland 149. 35123/07 FALTUS v. Poland 150. 36641/07 MIKOŁAJCZYK v. Poland 151. 43443/07 ŻUKOWSKI v. Poland 152. 47591/07 Henryk SIENKIEWICZ v. Poland 153. 48335/07 LIGĘZA v. Poland 154. 51571/07 IWASZKO v. Poland 155. 52795/07 MICHALEWSKI and KOCHAŃSKA v. Poland 156. 55808/07 NOWOSIELSKI v. Poland 157. 975/08 RYSIAK v. Poland 158. 1152/08 JARACZ v. Poland 159. 1840/08 BACH and JANICKA-LEWANDOWSKA v. Poland 160. 2916/08 PIETRUKIEWICZ v. Poland 161. 4886/08 TALAGA v. Poland 162. 5375/08 KOŁODNICKA v. Poland 163. 9250/08 DROBNICKA v. Poland 164. 9311/08 KOMIAGO v. Poland 165. 12512/08 TOMCZYK v. Poland 166. 14156/08 PILŚNIAK v. Poland 167. 16751/08 SADURA and Others v. Poland 168. 19027/08 MAGADZIO v. Poland 169. 19101/08 PIWONI v. Poland 170. 20159/08 GALEŃSKI and Others v. Poland 171. 21499/08 PIŃSCY v. Poland 172. 26172/08 ZALESCY v. Poland 173. 26786/08 BOCHENEK v. Poland 174. 28099/08 KUŹNAR and GONDEK v. Poland 175. 38626/08 ZALEWSKA-BUJARA v. Poland