FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 20440/05
by Ryszard KWIATKIEWICZ 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 20 May 2005,
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 Ryszard Kwiatkiewicz (“the first applicant”), Mr Andrzej Kwiatkiewicz (“the second applicant”), Ms Maria Kwiatkiewicz-Świeczka (“the third applicant”) and Ms Irena Budarkiewicz (“the fourth applicant”), are Polish nationals who were born in 1934, 1936, 1942 and 1939 and they live in Wrocław, Oświęcim, Opole and Nowy Targ, respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Szypowski, a lawyer practising in Wrocław.
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. 20440/05
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 1 June 1992 the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicants' family had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 27 December 2001 the Mayor of Wrocław (Prezydent Miasta) issued a decision confirming that the first, second and third applicants had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their parents, valued at 1,522,316 Polish zlotys (PLN).
On 20 February 2002 the first, second and third 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. 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' 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).
In the meantime the applicants lodged a claim aimed at establishing that their grandparents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River. On 21 September 2004 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the claim. It found that the applicants' grandparents were not subjected to forced repatriation from the territories beyond the Bug River and they could not benefit from the provisions of the “Republican Agreements”. As a consequence, the court found that the applicants did not have a legal interest in pursuing their claim. On 25 May 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the judgment.
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