FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 14156/08
by Jarosława PILŚNIAK
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 26 February 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 Jarosława Pilśniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Częstochowa.
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. 14156/08
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Częstochowa Town Office (Urząd Miata) to enable her to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 12 March 1999 the authorities informed her that her claim had been entered in the relevant register as claim no. GKGV7229/333/99 but its realisation depended on the adoption of future measures by Parliament in respect of Bug River claims.
On 29 March 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s parents 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).
On 22 August 2005 the Śląski Governor (Wojewoda) issued a decision refusing to confirm that the applicant had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by her family since the claim had been already satisfied. On 4 November 2005 the applicant appealed. On 2 July 2006 the Minister for Treasury quashed the decision and remitted the case. The proceedings are apparently still pending.
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