5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Orneta. 6.  The applicant submitted that M.C., her husband, had been deported (dislocated) from Vilnius to the territories occupied by Germany (Lithuania and Belarus) and had performed forced labour for a railways company under German management from July 1941 until July 1944. He constructed railway trucks. In July 1944 he returned home and continued to work for the same company. In 1945 the applicant's husband was “repatriated” from the Soviet Union to Poland. The applicant submitted that all his documents had been seized by the Soviet military. 7.  M.C. died on 28 February 2001. On 11 December 2001 the applicant, as an eligible successor of her late husband, applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (“the Foundation”) for compensation on account of her husband's forced labour during the war. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”) established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (“the German Foundation Act” or “GFA”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation”) and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation. 8.  On 3 March 2003 the Foundation's Verification Commission refused the request for compensation. It found that in the case of the applicant's husband the condition of deportation had not been fulfilled. 9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. She submitted that in July 1941 the German work office had assigned her husband to perform forced labour as a railways track builder. He had been performing that forced labour in various places in Lithuania, Belarus and in the General Government (Generalna Gubernia; administrative entity established by the Nazi government in occupied Poland) until July 1944. The applicant submitted various documents in support of the claim. One of the documents was a certificate issued by the German Railways Social Security Office. It attested that M.C. had worked as a forced labourer for the Lithuanian Railways under German Administration from July 1939 to May 1945. The second document was a certificate issued by the Lithuanian Railways. It stated that the applicant's husband had been employed by the Lithuanian Railways from 1939 to June 1945. 10.  On 11 February 2004 the Appeal Commission upheld the impugned decision. It informed the applicant that under section 11 of the GFA only those forced labourers who had been deported to the German Reich or to an area occupied by it had been eligible for compensation. In addition, under the so-called “openness clause” (klauzula otwartości) forced labourers who had been relocated (osoby dyslokowane) outside their province of residence to a province with a different administrative status had been also eligible for compensation. 11.  The Appeal Commission noted that M.C. had worked on a labour train (Bauzug) whose home station had been Vilnius (located on the territory of Poland as its national borders had stood before the outbreak of the Second World War). Furthermore, the documents submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that M.C. had been deported or relocated to the German Reich or to occupied territories. Accordingly, no award could have been made as M.C. had performed forced labour without having satisfied the condition of deportation or relocation. 12.  The applicant strongly disagreed. She claimed that her husband had been subjected to forced labour from July 1941 to July 1944 in the occupied territories (Lithuania and Belarus). 13.  On 6 May 2004, having re-examined the case on the request of an MP, the Appeal Commission upheld its previous decision. It observed that the condition of deportation (relocation) was satisfied by the claimants who had permanently lost their ties with the habitual place of residence. The Commission noted that M.C. had temporarily stayed in Belarus or on the territory of the General Government in connection with his forced labour, but he had been returning to Vilnius, his home station. Accordingly, he had had permanent contact with his place of residence. As a result, the applicant could not have been awarded compensation on account of her husband's forced labour since he had not satisfied the condition of deportation or relocation as stipulated in the GFA. 14.  On 4 February 2005 the Appeal Commission, having re-examined the documents adduced in the case, informed the applicant that its previous decision remained valid.