FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
Application no. 23922/04
by Eugeniusz PIATCZYC
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 17 June 2004,
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, Mr Eugeniusz Piatczyc, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Starogard Gdański.
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. 23922/04
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 January 1991 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave a declaratory judgment stating that the applicant’s parents had owned real property in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 6 December 1990 the Lębork District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant and his brother had acquired their late parents’ estate and that they were entitled to receive one half each.
On the same day the applicant asked the Lębork District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On 2 March 1992 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.
On 6 June 2001 the Mayor of the Starogard Gdański District (Starosta) issued a certificate confirming that the applicant and his brother had the right to compensation for the property abandoned by their family, valued at 93,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) as of April 2001.
Between 2001 and 2003 the applicant made numerous unsuccessful requests to the various authorities to enable him to acquire State property in compensation for the property abandoned in the territories beyond the Bug River.
On unspecified dates the applicant lodged two claims for compensation for the Bug River property against the State Treasury with civil and administrative courts. On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) rejected the claim as the matter did not fall within the competence of the administrative courts. On 30 April 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s request to be exempted from court fees. In view of the amount of the court fees due, he decided not to pursue the claim.
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).
The applicant did not inform the Court whether he had 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.
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