4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Białystok, Poland. 5.  In 1940 the applicant's father had been arrested by NKVD (Soviet People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and was sent with his family to Kazakhstan. The applicant's mother died in 1940 and her father died in London in 1967. In 1946 the applicant and her siblings returned to Poland. 6.  On 6 October 1948 the property belonging to the applicant's parents was taken over by the State. 7.  In 1990 the applicant and her sister were designated jointly as their father's heirs. 8.  On 29 November 2001 the applicant applied to the Podlaski Governor (Wojewoda Podlaski) to have the 1948 decision annulled and her parents' property returned to her. The case was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture for consideration. 9.  Subsequently, the applicant wrote to the Minister and other authorities complaining that the property had not been returned to her. 10.  On 28 November 2003 she complained to the Minister about his inactivity. As she received no reply to her complaint, on 5 December 2003 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, lodged a complaint about the Minister's inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 11.  Following her complaint, on 5 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court requested the Minister to provide it with the case file within thirty days. It appears that the Minister did not comply with this order. However, the Minister started examining the merits of the applicant's case and made several requests to various authorities asking them for documents. 12.  On 20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny), to which the case was transferred, informed the applicant that despite its repeated requests the Minister had not complied with the order to provide the case file. The applicant was advised that she could therefore apply for a fine to be imposed on the Minister. 13.  On 4 June 2004 the Minister gave a decision in which he stayed the proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal in which she asked for the decision to be reconsidered and the proceedings to be resumed. 14.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant followed the Regional Administrative Court's advice and applied to have a fine imposed on the Minister. 15.  On 3 August 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the Minister's inactivity. The court found that since the Minister had stayed the proceedings the inactivity had ceased to exist. The applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. However, it was rejected on 8 October 2004 as the applicant's lawyer failed to pay court fees for the appeal. 16.  After the decision of 3 August 2004, the applicant withdrew her application for the imposition of a fine, and on 17 September 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court discontinued the relevant proceedings. 17.  On 6 April 2005 the Minister resumed the proceedings. 18.  On 18 November 2005 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision. He annulled the 1948 decision and returned a part of the property to the applicant. 19.  On 7 December 2005 the Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative, which has been using the land in question, joined the proceedings as a party and lodged an appeal against the decision. 20.  On 22 May 2006 the Minister upheld its decision of 18 November 2005. The Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative lodged an appeal against the decision. 21.  On 11 October 2006 the Regional Administrative Court gave a judgment. It quashed the impugned decision of 22 May 2006 finding that the co-operative had no standing in the proceedings. The Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative appealed. 22.  The proceedings are pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.