PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 19171/03) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms Danuta Zofia Chmielecka (“the applicant”), on 6 June 2003.

The applicant was represented by A. Chmielecki, a lawyer practising in Olsztyn. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 7 September 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Olsztyn.

A. Facts before 1 May 1993

The applicant’s mother owned a mill situated in Rogoźno, Poland. By virtue of Ordinance no. 425 issued on 6 December 1955, the Minister of Purchase (Minister Skupu) nationalised the mill.

On 7 June 1990 the applicant’s mother instituted administrative proceedings before the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej) and the Minister of the Internal Market (Minister Rynku Wewnętrznego). She asked the authorities for restitution of her property.

On an unspecified date the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy transferred the case file to the Minister of the Internal Market who, on 9 May 1991, gave a decision. It was challenged by the applicant and, on 3 June 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) gave judgment and quashed the decision.

On 17 January 1992 the Minister of Industry and Commerce (Minister Przemysłu i Handlu), who had assumed the competencies of the Minister of the Internal Market, transferred the case to the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.

On 19 October 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and obliged the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy to give, within 14 days, a decision on the motion lodged on 7 June 1990.

B. Facts after 1 May 1993

In April 1995 the applicant’s mother died.

On 18 April 1996 the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired her late mother’s inheritance.

On 30 May 1996 the applicant asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy for the immediate enforcement of the judgment of 19 October 1992.

As the Minister had failed to give any decision, on 19 July 1996 the applicant lodged an inactivity complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. She also requested that a fine be imposed on the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy and a declaration be granted that the 1955 Ordinance was null and void.

On 12 May 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the inactivity complaint. It relied on the fact that on 22 April 1998 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy had given a decision on the merits, whereby the applicant’s restitution motion had been dismissed.

On 7 May 1998 the applicant made an application to the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy for reconsideration (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy) of the decision of 22 April 1998.

On 28 July 2000 the applicant filed another inactivity complaint with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.

As no decision had been given, on 20 October 2000 she lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.

On 21 December 2000 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi), who had assumed the competencies of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy, upheld the decision of 22 April 1998.

On 19 January 2001 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 6 March 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning her inactivity complaint, since, on 21 December 2000, the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development had taken the decision in question.

On 21 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed both decisions given by the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development.

As no decision had been given for months, on 9 April 2003 the applicant lodged with the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development an inactivity complaint and, on 13 May 2003, another inactivity complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.

On 22 March 2004 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development stayed the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal in that respect was dismissed by the same authority on 10 May 2004. The applicant appealed to the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny).

On 20 May 2004 the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s inactivity complaint.

On 30 November 2004 the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions by virtue of which the administrative proceedings had been stayed.

On 8 November 2007 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development gave a decision declaring that the Ordinance no. 425 of 6 December 1955 had been issued in flagrant breach of the law. This decision became final.

C. Proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court

On 13 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court, alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development. In her complaint, she alleged that, despite the judgment of the Warszawa Regional Administrative Court of 30 November 2004, the Minister had failed to give a decision on the merits. The applicant maintained that the Regional Administrative Court has not so far examined her complaint.