4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Jarocin. 5.  The applicant’s relative – a certain W.W. – owned the Jarocin Furniture Factory, registered under numbers: no. 87/1 and 87/2 with a surface area of 4,955 square metres. By an administrative decision of 11 January 1955 of the Board of the Poznań National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) the factory and the adjacent land were expropriated.
The applicant is one of the heirs of the owner of that property. 6.  On 12 April 2001 the applicant together with other members of her family lodged a request with the Mayor of the Jarocin District (Starosta) for restitution of the property. 7.  On 22 June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District with the District Council (Rada Powiatu). The complaint was referred to the Wielkopolski Governor (Wojewoda) as the competent administrative authority. 8.  On 5 July 2001 the Mayor of the Jarocin District discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed. 9.  On 6 September 2001 the Wielkopolski Governor informed the applicant that her complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District had been left without consideration since on 5 July 2001 the Mayor had issued a decision. 10.  On 10 September 2001 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the decision of the Mayor of the Jarocin District and remitted the case. 11.  On 22 October 2001 the Mayor of the Jarocin District stayed the proceedings due to the applicant’s failure to produce all necessary decisions confirming that she had acquired the property as the heir of the deceased owner. 12.  On 18 March 2002 the applicant asked for the resumption of the proceedings, to no avail. 13.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District with the District Council (Rada Powiatu). On 27 December 2002 her complaint was referred to the Wielkopolski Governor. 14.  On 3 June 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor dismissed the complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District. It held that even if the applicant had submitted all of the necessary testamentary evidence, the proceedings would not have been resumed until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for a declaration that the expropriation decision was null and void (see below). 15.  The proceedings are still stayed. 16.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Office for Housing and Town Development (Urząd Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) for a declaration that the expropriation decision of 11 January 1955 was null and void. 17.  By a decision of 9 May 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) refused to institute the administrative proceedings, since the applicant had failed to produce the relevant documents in support of her claim. The applicant made an application for reconsideration of the matter. 18.  On 30 July 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed his decision of 9 May 2002. 19.  On 30 May 2003 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development decided to stay the proceedings, following the death of one of the parties to the proceedings. 20.  By a decision of 9 February 2004 the Minister of Infrastructure (Minister Infrastruktury) resumed the proceedings and asked the Jarocin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) and Ostrów District Court to provide the relevant documents concerning the property at issue. 21.  By a letter of 26 April 2004 the applicant was informed by the Cabinet Office that the Minister of Infrastructure had been asked to accelerate the proceedings and to inform the authorities about the reasons for his delay. 22.  On 12 May 2004 the applicant was informed that the Minister of Infrastructure had asked several administrative authorities to provide the documents from the archives concerning the status of the property at issue. 23.  On 29 July 2005 the Ministry of Infrastructure apologised for the delay and stated that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time-limit specified in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure due to the need to undertake further examination of the application. Moreover, the Ministry indicated that, immediately after the determination of all the parties to the proceedings, the hearing would take place. 24.  On 16 April 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Minister of Infrastructure with the Prime Minister. 25.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant requested the Ministry of Transport and Construction (Ministerstwo Transportu i Budownictwa) to accelerate the proceedings and to schedule an administrative hearing in the case. 26.  On 26 April 2006 the Ministry of Transport and Construction apologised for the delay and informed the applicant that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time-limit specified in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure due to its heavy workload and the complex nature of the case. The Ministry informed the applicant that the decision would be issued by 30 November 2006. 27.  On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Minister of Transport and Construction with the Prime Minister. 28.  On 30 October and 1 December 2006 the Minister of Construction (Minister Budownictwa) informed the Cabinet Office about the reasons for the delay in the proceedings. He stressed that the case was particularly complex and he referred to the need to continue the process of gathering evidence. 29.  On 18 December 2006 the Ministry of Construction informed the applicant that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time-limit specified in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure due to the need to establish the current address of one of the parties to the proceedings. The applicant was further informed that the decision would be issued by 31 March 2007. 30.  By a decision of 28 April 2008 the Minister of Infrastructure refused to declare the expropriation decision null and void. 31.  On 23 May 2008 the applicant lodged an application for reconsideration of the matter. 32.  On 22 July 2008 the applicant was informed by the Minister of Infrastructure that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time-limit specified in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and that the decision would be issued by 31 December 2008. 33.  The proceedings are still pending.