4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Włocławek. 5.  The applicant's parents co-owned a carpenter's workshop and a house located in Włocławek. On 17 December 1976 a local land development plan was adopted under which a rain and a sanitary ditch were to be built on their land. By a notarial deed of 23 June 1980 the representative of the State Treasury, the applicant's parents and the remaining co-owners concluded a contract of sale, under the provisions of the Law on Expropriation of 12 March 1958 (Ustawa o zasadach i trybie wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości). They agreed to sell the plot of land listed in the local land register as plot no. 143 for the agreed price. 6.  After the sale, the property was leased back to the applicant's parents. 7.  The applicant's father died on 7 November 1988. The applicant and her mother, G.S., inherited from him. 8.  On 8 February 1989 the applicant's mother lodged a motion with the Włocławek Town Office (Urząd Miejski) for restitution of the property. She argued that the local land development plan had not been implemented and therefore the State no longer required her property for the reasons of public interest for which it had been expropriated. 9.  It appears that by letters of 7 March and 3 April 1989 the applicant's mother contacted the authorities requesting them to conclude a new lease contract. It seems that her letters have not been answered. 10.  On 15 March 1989 the Włocławek Town Office dismissed her motion, arguing that only a property which had been expropriated, and which had not been sold, could be recovered under the Law on Expropriation. 11.  On 5 May 1989 the Governor's Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 15 March 1989 and discontinued the proceedings, noting that the claim should have been lodged before the civil courts. 12.  On 7 December 1989 the Company of Housing Economy (Przedsiębiorstwo Gospodarki Mieszkaniowej) informed the applicant's mother about the termination of the lease contract. This decision was enforced on 21 August 1991, when the applicant and her mother had left the property. 13.  On 14 March 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the decisions of 15 March and 5 May 1989. It referred to the Supreme Court's resolution of 20 February 1986, which held that a transfer of a real estate to the State Treasury under a sale contract was to be considered an expropriation for the purposes of the restitution proceedings. 14.  By a decision of 7 May 1991 the Mayor of Włocławek (Prezydent Miasta) stayed the proceedings, pending the adoption of the new local land development plan. 15.  On 18 July 1991 the Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the decision of 7 May 1991. 16.  On 12 August 1992 the Mayor of Włocławek discontinued the proceedings. 17.  It appears that on 7 September 1992 the applicant's mother lodged yet another motion for restitution with the Włocławek District Office (Urząd Rejonowy). 18.  On 13 May 1993 the Włocławek District Office dismissed the motion. The decision was served on the applicant, her mother and other co‑owners of the property. 19.  On 6 July 1993 the Governor's Office quashed the decision of the District Office and remitted the case. 20.  On 22 November 1993 the Head of the District Office (Kierwonik Urzędu Rejonowego) dismissed the motion for restitution. 21.  On 11 January 1994 the Governor's Office quashed the decision of 22 November 1993 and remitted the case. 22.  On 25 April 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Governor about the inactivity of the Włocławek District Office. 23.  On 24 May 1994 the Governor's Office acknowledged the delay and informed the applicant that the decision would be issued by 30 June 1994. 24.  On 1 September 1994 the Włocławek District Office apologised for the delay in the proceedings, claiming that they had not, until then, received necessary information from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Ministerstwo Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa). 25.  By a decision of 14 November 1994 of the Włocławek District Office the real estate was restored to the applicant and other co-owners. 26.  On 5 January 1995 the Governor's Office quashed the decision of the District Office and remitted the case for re-examination. 27.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant together with the remaining co‑owners submitted a request under the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 29 April 1985 (Ustawa o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości) for partial restitution of the real estate (the carpenter's workshop with the adjacent land) – a part of the property that had not been inhabited. 28.  By a notarial deed of 13 March 1995 the applicant's mother transferred all her claims and obligations connected with the real estate to the applicant. 29.  On 5 April 1995 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Governor about the inactivity of the Włocławek District Office. 30.  On 29 April 1995 the Governor's Office acknowledged the delay and informed the applicant that a decision would be issued by 14 June 1995. 31.  By a decision of 23 May 1995 of the Włocławek District Office the real estate was partly returned to the applicant and the other co-owners. 32.  On 3 July 1995 the Governor's Office upheld that decision. 33.  On 14 January 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 23 May and 3 July 1995, holding that the calculation of the re‑payment was wrong. 34.  On 30 October 1998 the real estate was divided into two parts: real estate no. 143/1 and real estate no. 143/2. 35.  On 23 January 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Governor's Office. 36.  On 22 February 1999 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Governor's Office apologised for the delay. They explained that the delay had been caused by a new law, which had changed the competence of the administrative authorities to deal with the case. It had entered into force on 1 January 1998. 37.  On 12 November 1999 the Mayor of Włocławek decided to restore to the applicant a plot of land listed in the local land register as plot no. 143/2 (a part of property that she has claimed in her motion of 27 February 1995). She was ordered to repay the compensation which her parents had received for the expropriation of this plot. The applicant took possession of it on 12 January 2000. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision. 38.  On 29 May 2000 the applicant again filed a motion for restitution of the plot of land listed in the local land register as plot no. 143/1. 39.  On 31 August 2001 the Mayor of Włocławek gave a decision in which it allowed the applicant's action. The property in question was restored to the applicant and the other co-owners. The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that the authorities had failed to address the issue of the persons inhabiting the property. 40.  On 26 October 2001 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Governor upheld the first‑instance decision. The applicant appealed. 41.  On 21 June 2005 the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the decisions of 31 August and 26 October 2001. 42.  On 21 October 2005 the Mayor of Włocławek District (Starosta Powiatu) was appointed as the competent administrative authority to deal with the applicant's case. 43.  On 23 November 2005 the applicant was informed that all evidence had been obtained. 44.  On 21 February 2008 the applicant complained about the inactivity of the Mayor of Włocławek District to the Kujawsko-Pomorski Governor's Office. 45.  On 17 April 2008 the Mayor of Włocławek District acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and informed the applicant that the persons responsible for the delay would be identified. 46.  By a decision of 21 May 2008 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Governor informed the applicant that a decision would be issued by 31 July 2008. 47.  On 21 August 2008 the Mayor of Włocławek District gave a decision. It decided to restore to the applicant real estate no. 143/1. She was ordered to repay the compensation received by her parents for the expropriation of that plot. This decision became final on 5 September 2008. The applicant has refused to take possession of the plot, as it is inhabited. 48.  On 20 September 2003 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged unlawful actions of the Włocławek Community. She submitted that for eleven years she could not use her real estate. 49.  On 12 April 2005 the Włocławek Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed. 50.  On 19 April 2006 the Gdansk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant was served with the judgment on 10 October 2006. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.