5.  In 1948 the applicant’s legal predecessor, her father, Roman Pawłowski, lodged an application under Article 7 of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on real property in Warsaw for temporary ownership of a plot of land situated in Warsaw at Szczęśliwicka Street 43. This application remained unanswered. 6.  In 1981 the Bydgoszcz District Court declared that the applicant had acquired one-half of the estate of her late father and had thereby become his legal successor. 7.  On 20 December 1988 the applicant reiterated her father’s request submitted in 1948 and requested that possession of the plot be restored to her. In 1990 she again requested the authorities to issue a decision. 8.  In 1993 the Board of Association of Districts of Warsaw City (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic-Gmin Warszawy), by a decision of 17 June, declared that ownership of the property concerned had been acquired by the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise. The applicant appealed, pointing out that the decision was unlawful because her request had already been pending before the authorities at that time. 9.  On 23 February 1995 the Land Administration Division of the Warsaw Municipality found that it was not competent to examine the case. The case file was subsequently transmitted, on an unknown later date, to the Board of Warsaw City. 10.  On 12 June 2001 the Board of Warsaw City (Zarząd Miasta st. Warszawy) examined the request and dismissed it in its part concerning a surface area of 2,205 square metres. Apparently the plot had been divided, on an unspecified earlier date, into two parts, the other part covering 478 square metres, with the State Treasury listed as its owner in the local land register. The applicant appealed. 11.  On 21 September 2001 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision of 12 June 2001 and remitted the case for reconsideration. 12.  On 11 October 2001 the applicant complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the second-instance authority’s failure to issue a decision regarding the plot of 478 square metres. In March 2002 she reiterated her complaint. 13.  On 8 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the authorities’ failure to give a decision on the merits of the case. 14.  By two decisions dated 25 June 2002, the Local Government Board of Appeal found that the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings were unfounded. 15.  On 22 March 2002 the Local Government Board of Appeal found that the decision by which the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise had acquired ownership of the part of the property concerned was unlawful and had to be quashed. Warsaw City appealed. 16.  On 7 January 2003 the Warsaw Municipal Office (Urząd Miasta st. Warszawy) stayed the proceedings, having regard to the fact that the proceedings to establish the owner of the property were pending. 17.  On 28 February 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the authorities’ failure to give a decision, having regard to the fact that on 7 January 2003 the proceedings had been stayed. Hence, it could not be said that the authorities had failed to act in the case. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed. 18.  On 22 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the first-instance authority’s failure to issue a decision. On 18 May 2004 the Board gave a decision by which it ordered the Mayor to give a decision within one month. 19.  On 2 April and 25 May 2003 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the Mayor’s failure to give a decision in the case. 20.  On 26 April 2004 the Mayor of Warsaw stayed the proceedings, having regard to the fact that in the absence of a valid land development plan for the city it was impossible to decide on the applicant’s request. 21.  The applicant appealed. The Local Government Board of Appeal allowed her appeal and quashed the decision to stay the proceedings. The Mayor appealed. On 28 July 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and discontinued the appellate proceedings. 22.  On 2 February 2006 the applicant lodged a new complaint with that court about the authorities’ failure to give a decision in the case. 23.  On 24 March 2006 the Mayor of Warsaw refused to allow the applicant’s request to grant to her the right to perpetual use. The applicant appealed. On 24 July 2006 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and ordered that the merits of the case should be re‑examined. It observed:
“It should be noted that the grounds of the impugned decision are erroneous: the first-instance body had failed to take into proper consideration both the provisions of the Decree of 1944 and other legal provisions currently applicable to the case. Its slowness in dealing with the case justifies a negative assessment of the impugned decision which also seems to indicate that the first-instance authority had not been, so far, intending to deal with the case properly.” 24.  On 7 June 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 2 February 2006, having observed that a decision on the merits of the case had been given by the Mayor on 24 March 2006. 25.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant again complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the Mayor’s failure to issue a decision on the merits. On 11 September 2007 the Board found that the complaint was well‑founded and ordered the Mayor to give a decision within a two‑month time‑limit. 26.  On 20 November 2007 the applicant again complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the excessive length of the proceedings. Shortly afterwards she was informed that on 19 November 2007 the Mayor had again refused her application. The applicant appealed and the case is currently pending before the second‑instance authority.