4. The applicant, Mr Gerard Helwig, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Poznań, Poland. 5.  In 1940 the applicant’s father, S.H, died. 6.  On 27 February 1951 S.H’s manufacturing works, Fr. Helwig Repair Works (przedsiębiorstwo “Warszaty Reparacyjne Fr. Helwig”), was placed under state administration. On 30 June 1958 the property was expropriated. 7.  On 24 February 1992 the Kościan District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision and declared that the applicant and his siblings should inherit S.H.’s property. 8.  In 1988 the applicant’s brother lodged a request for annulment of the 1951 and 1958 decisions. 9.  On March 1995 the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (Minister Przemysłu i Handlu) gave a decision and declared the decision of 1951 null and void. The Minister stressed that there had not been any valid legal grounds to place the manufacturing works under state administration. 10.  On 9 May 1995 the Ministry of Industry and Commerce transferred the case to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywonościowej). 11.  On 8 October 1997 the Ministry of Agriculture asked the Leszno Governor’s Office (Urząd Wojewódzki w Lesznie) to obtain evidence in the applicant’s case. On 6 February 1998 the Ministry asked the Governor’s office to supplement the documentary evidence that they had meanwhile submitted. 12.  On 6 November 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture refused to institute proceedings relating to the annulment of the decision of 30 June 1958. The Ministry held that S.H.’s heirs had failed to submit documents confirming their title to the property in question. The applicant appealed against this decision. 13.  On 21 May 1999 the Ombudsman upon the applicant’s complaint asked the Ministry of Agriculture to proceed with the appeal. 14.  On 16 June 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture issued a decision and upheld the decision of 6 November 1998. 15.  On 14 July 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 16.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the unreasonable delay before the Supreme Administrative Court. He submitted that for many years he had been waiting for justice to be done, however to no avail. 17.  On 4 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed the Ministry’s decisions of 6 November 1998 and 16 June 1999. 18.  On 6 March 2002 the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi) discontinued the administrative proceedings. It considered that the applicant’s father had not had a title to the property in question. The applicant complained about that decision. 19.  He also sent letters to various institutions (the President of Poland, the Ombudsman, etc.) complaining about the length of the administrative proceedings. 20.  On 19 December 2002 the Ministry of Agriculture informed the applicant that his appeal against the decision of 6 March 2002 had been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit and accordingly should be rejected. 21.  On 8 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości) alleging unfairness of the proceedings and complaining about their length. 22.  On 16 May 2003 in reply to the applicant’s complaints, the Poznań Regional Prosecutor stressed that the decisions of the Ministry of Agriculture had been issued in breach of law. It further confirmed that the Prosecutor General had appealed against the Ministry’s decision of 6 March 2002. 23.  On 24 September 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development issued a decision and declared the decisions of 6 March 2002 and of 30 June 1958 null and void, as they had been delivered in flagrant breach of the law. 24.  On 12 November 2003 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for compensation for unlawful expropriation of his late father’s property. On 23 December 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture informed the applicant that the competent authority to consider his case was the Minister of Economy, Labour and Social Policy (Minister Gospodarki, Pracy i Polityki Socjalnej). 25.  Meanwhile, the applicant sent numerous letters to various authorities complaining about the way the case was being handled. In reply he was given various reasons for the delay. 26.  On 30 March 2004 the Minister of Economy informed the applicant that his application of 12 November 2003 could not be considered a request for compensation, and that accordingly the applicant should lodge another application for compensation. 27.  On 30 April 2004 the Minister of Economy informed the applicant that his letter of 12 November 2003 would be considered an application for compensation within the meaning of Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. 28.  On 23 June 2004 the Minister of Economy informed the applicant that the documents necessary for issuing the compensation decision should be prepared by the end of the year. 29.  On 28 July 2004 and 18 August 2004 the applicant complained to the Office of the Prime Minister. In reply he was informed that the administrative authorities were independent and that the Prime Minister’s Office could not intervene. 30.  On 9 September 2004 the Minister of Economy replied to the applicant’s complaints concerning the delays in the proceedings. It considered that the compensation proceedings constituted a separate set of proceedings and that a separate application should have been lodged. Since the applicant failed to specify that his application concerned compensation, the Ministry had to ask for clarification, which caused the delays. 31.  On 10 December 2004 an expert report on the value of the expropriated property was submitted to the Ministry. 32.  On 17 December 2004 the Minister of Economy officially instituted compensation proceedings, as required under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings. 33.  The documents concerning the compensation proceedings were sent to the applicant for comments. On 24 February 2005 the applicant submitted his comments. 34.  On 12 May 2005 the Minister of Economy issued a decision awarding the applicant partial compensation in the amount of 35,480 Polish zlotys (PLN), constituting three-sixteenths of the real value of the property expropriated in 1958. 35.  The applicant was not satisfied with the amount awarded and, on an unspecified date, he made a civil claim for compensation against the State Treasury with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 36.  It appears that the claim was not examined on the merits due to the applicant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements. 37.  On an unspecified date the State Treasury instituted proceedings for a permit to make a court deposit in order to secure the compensation awarded in the decision of 12 May 2005 (o zezwolenie na złożenie przedmiotu świadczenia do depozytu sądowego). On 30 August 2006 the Poznań District Court authorised the security deposit, enabling the applicant to receive the money after submitting a copy of the final and enforceable decision of 12 May 2005.