4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Montresor. 5.  The applicant’s predecessor owned property comprising also a park and a manor situated in Przecław. By virtue of the Decree of 6 September 1944 on Agrarian Reform (“the 1944 Decree”) ownership of private agricultural properties exceeding 50 hectares was transferred ex lege to the State. In 1974 the State transferred ownership of the property to a State-owned company Delta-Mielec. In the same year an entry confirming that company’s right of perpetual use in respect of the property was made in the land register. After the collapse of the communist regime the applicant and other legal successors of the former owners instituted proceedings seeking to have the ownership restored to them. 6.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings. She requested the Podkarpackie Governor (Wojewoda Podkarpacki) to give a decision declaring the expropriation null and void. She argued that the expropriation decision was unlawful in that the property concerned had not fallen within the scope of the criteria for nationalisation stipulated by the 1944 Decree. 7.  On 3 April 2003 the Podkarpacki Governor held that the property was covered by the Decree and therefore the expropriation decision had been lawful. The applicant appealed. 8.  On 19 December 2003 the Minister of Agriculture quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. 9.  By a decision of 3 August 2004 the Governor held that the park and manor were covered by the 1944 Decree. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 8 June 2005 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure about the Minister’s failure to give a decision in the case within a reasonable time. She reiterated her complaint on 10 January 2007. There was no reply to these complaints. 11.  On 5 November 2007 the Minister upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant appealed. On 18 September 2008 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both the first- and second-instance decisions, finding that the first-instance authority had failed to inform the parties, including the applicant, about an administrative hearing it had held. 12.  On 28 May 2010 the Podkarpacki Governor discontinued the proceedings. It had regard to a decision given by the Constitutional Court on 1 March 2010 (see paragraph 26 below). It held that in the light of that decision the administrative authorities had no jurisdiction to examine issues concerning the lawfulness of expropriation decisions given on the basis of the 1944 Decree. 13.  The applicant appealed, referring to the resolution given by the Supreme Administrative Court on 5 June 2006 (I OPS 2/06; see paragraph 25 below). She argued that the authority had failed to provide the legal basis for the proceedings to be discontinued. 14.  On 28 December 2010 the Minister upheld the contested decision. The applicant appealed. On 28 January 2011 the Minister noted that he was competent to quash his own decision if he found it to be unlawful. He accordingly quashed the decision of 28 December 2011, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 10 January 2011 (see paragraph 27 below). He held that the first-instance administrative authority had jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s case. 15.  On 11 April 2011 the applicant again complained about the Governor’s failure to give a decision. On 20 September 2011 the Minister found that the applicant’s complaint was ill-founded. 16.  On 29 July 2011 the Podkarpacki Governor held that the provisions of the 1944 Decree were not applicable to the park and manor and that therefore there were no legal grounds on which the property concerned could be expropriated. 17.  On 28 March 2012 the Minister upheld this decision. 18.  In 2006 the applicant, having regard to discrepancies in the case-law regarding the procedural situation of former owners and their legal successors, instituted civil proceedings with a view to having the ownership restored to her. She instituted proceedings against the State Treasury and against the Mielec-Delta public company before the Mielec District Court, seeking rectification of the land register so as to make it reflect the actual legal status of the land (powództwo o uzgodnienie księgi wieczystej z rzeczywistym stanem prawnym). 19.  On 5 March 2009 the Mielec District Court dismissed her action. It noted, firstly, that under the 1944 Decree properties consisting of parks and manors (zespół parkowo-pałacowy) were not subject to expropriation. However, the applicant had failed to show that the property concerned had ever been formally separated from the agrarian property as a whole so as to constitute a separate subject of ownership. In any event, the applicant had failed to show that she had obtained a final administrative decision declaring the expropriation decision null and void. Such a decision was a necessary prerequisite for a civil court to hold that the ownership of the property had not been transferred to the State and to determine all consequences in the sphere of civil law resulting from such a decision. 20.  The applicant appealed. She submitted that the court had erred in refusing to stay the proceedings until an administrative decision was given, because such a decision was a necessary prerequisite for the civil court to rule on the merits of the case. She further submitted that the court had thereby breached the Constitution by encroaching on the exclusive competences of the administrative authorities. 21.  On 2 July 2009 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed her appeal. It observed that it was obvious that a decision on whether the 1944 Decree was applicable to the property could only be given by the administrative authorities. It referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of 30 January 2007 (see paragraph 25 below). It emphasised that the case-law of the administrative courts also indicated that only the administrative authorities were competent to determine this issue. In the applicant’s case, as no such decision had ever been given, no other course of action was open to the civil court than to hold that the claim to have the entries in the land register rectified had to fail. 22.  By a decision of 30 April 2010, served on the applicant’s representative on 1 June 2010, the Supreme Court refused to entertain her cassation appeal. It noted that the applicant had instituted civil proceedings in the absence of an administrative decision declaring the expropriation unlawful and therefore null and void. In such situation the courts had no choice but to dismiss her claim.