FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 5375/08
by Zofia KOŁODNICKA
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 4 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 Zofia Kołodnicka, is a Polish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Przemyśl. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Kraków.
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. 5375/08
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 January and on 8 April 1982 respectively, the Przemyśl District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave decisions declaring that the applicant had acquired her late mother’s estate.
On 24 October 2001 the Krosno Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s mother had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 4 April 2002 the applicant obtained a valuation report which estimated the value of her mother’s Bug River property at 313,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of April 2002.
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).
On 29 April 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury. The action was unsuccessful. On 4 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed her claim. On 20 February 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the judgment. The courts found, in particular, that 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”) which limited the amount of compensation to 20 % of the original property’s value, the applicant could at any time institute proceedings under the July 2005 Act in order to recover the 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