4.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Olsztyn. 5.  In June 1948 the applicant’s late husband inherited part of the “Kowalewko” property, located in Dąbrowa, from its previous owner W.P. 6.  On 20 March 1948 the expropriation commission prepared a survey report according to which the property consisted of 45 hectares of arable land. 7.  On 4 June 1948 another survey report was adopted according to which the “Kowalewko” property consisted of 53.13 hectares of arable land. The commission decided that the findings of the report of 20 March 1948 were erroneous, as part of the property had been flooded and had been considered in the earlier report to be swamps and not arable land. 8.  By an administrative decision of the Warsaw Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) of 3 September 1948 the property was expropriated pursuant to provisions of the Decree of 6 September 1944 on Agrarian Reform (“the 1944 Decree”). 9.  On 16 October 1948 this decision was confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture, who upheld the findings of fact of the expropriation commission as to the surface area of the property concerned. 10.  On 5 January 1993 the applicant lodged with the Ministry of Agriculture an application to have the expropriation decision declared null and void. The applicant maintained that the property should not have been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law as it did not attain the minimum threshold of 50 hectares of arable land. She referred to records dated 11 September 1948 and 11 January 1949 relating to the property. 11.  On 15 November 1993 the applicant submitted the relevant documents in support of her claim. 12.  On 9 December 1993 the Minister informed the applicant that her application would be examined towards the end of 1994. 13.  On 21 December 1993 the applicant complained to the Cabinet Office about the inactivity of the Ministry of Agriculture and requested a speedy examination of her case. 14.  On 7 January 1994 the Cabinet Office referred the complaint to the Ministry of Agriculture. 15.  On 14 January 1994 the Minister of Agriculture requested the Ciechanów Regional Office to submit information concerning the current owners and possessors of the “Kowalewko” property. 16.  On 28 March 1994 the Ciechanów Regional Office submitted the requested information. 17.  On 9 September 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the Minister to issue a decision in her case. 18.  By a judgment of 19 December 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision concerning the applicant’s application within two months from the date of the judgment. 19.  On 28 March 1995 the Minister decided to stay the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant had not submitted evidence required in support of her claim. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court arguing that she had already submitted the relevant documents on 15 November 1993. 20.  On 18 June 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Minister’s decision to stay the proceedings. 21.  On 4 December 1996 the applicant again complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the inactivity of the Minister. 22.  On 26 March 1997 the Minister refused to declare null and void the decision of 1948. On 7 May 1997 the Minister upheld the decision of 26 March 1997. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. 23.  On 9 April 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint of 4 December 1996 about the inactivity of the Minister, since the Minister had already issued a decision on 26 March 1997. 24.  On 3 February 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Minister’s decision of 7 May 1997. The court found that the Minister had not properly examined all relevant evidence in the case. 25.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Cabinet Office about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. On 5 May 1999 the Cabinet Office replied that the Minister had taken steps to obtain information concerning the property. On 14 June 1999 the Cabinet Office transferred the applicant’s reply to the Ministry of Agriculture. 26.  On 30 June 1999 and 12 December 1999 the applicant inquired about her case. 27.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant lodged a fresh complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the Minister to issue a decision in her case (under section 17 of the Supreme Administrative Court Act). 28.  By a judgment of 15 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision within one month from the date of the judgment. The court noted that seven years had passed since the applicant had lodged her motion with the Ministry and no decision on the merits had been delivered. 29.  On 12 March 2001 the Minister of Agriculture issued a decision refusing to institute proceedings for annulment of the expropriation decision on the grounds that the applicant had not proved that she had a title to the property. 30.  The Minister upheld the decision on 23 April 2001. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. 31.  On 21 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions. The court found that the decisions had been issued in flagrant breach of administrative procedure and were inconsistent with the evidence obtained in the case. The court criticised the Minister for not complying with the instructions and legal opinion included in the previous judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court. Further, the court observed that in its judgment of 3 February 1999 it had quashed only the decision of 7 May 1997; consequently, the decision of 26 March 1997 remained valid and the Minister should have replied to the applicant’s appeal instead of issuing new decisions. Accordingly, the Minister could not have issued a decision refusing to institute the proceedings for annulment, since a decision on the merits had already been delivered. 32.  On 28 May 2004 the Minister refused to declare the decision of 1948 null and void, upholding the decision of 26 March 1997. 33.  On 2 December 2004 the Regional Administrative Court quashed the Minister’s decisions of 28 May 2004 and 26 March 1997. It observed that the Minister had still not complied with the court’s instructions; in particular the Minister had not allowed other heirs of W.P. (indicated by the applicant) to take part in the proceedings, although the Minister was clearly obliged to do so by the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 21 January 2002. 34.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Regional Administrative Court about the failure of the Minister to issue a decision (under the provisions of the Law on Procedure before Administrative Courts). 35.  By a judgment of 5 December 2005 the Regional Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision within one month from the date of the judgment. The court noted that the Minister had not taken any action in the case since the court’s judgment of 2 December 2004. Moreover, the authorities had summoned the applicant to complete unnecessary formalities, such as providing the address of a person whose death certificate had been included in the case file. 36.  On 24 June 2006 the Minister of Agriculture stayed ex officio the proceedings for annulment and requested the parties to institute court proceedings to determine entitlement to the estate of a certain J.W.P. (one of the parties to the proceedings who had died). 37.  On 18 January 2007 the Minister upheld the decision. 38.  On 14 June 2007 the Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister. 39.  The proceedings are still pending.