5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zamostne. The applicant is the legal successor of his mother, Mrs K.A.P., who died in May 2003. 6.  On 1 September 1944 a property owned by L.B. – the applicant's grandfather and the father of K.A.P.- M.B. and H.L., was taken over by the State pursuant to provisions of the Decree of the Polish Committee of National Liberation on the Agricultural Reform of 6 September 1944 (Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej). No decision was delivered in the proceedings. 7.  The applicant submits that on 16 October 1991 his mother, K.A.P., who was the legal successor of L.B., informed the Siedlecki Governor (Wojewoda Siedlecki) that she had undertaken certain steps seeking restitution of her property or pecuniary compensation in lieu. 8.  It appears that the Governor informed the applicant's mother by a letter of 20 November 1991 that no laws regulating this matter had been enacted yet. 9.  On 1 December 1995 K.A.P. lodged a request with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej) for restitution of the property. She argued that the property in question had been unlawfully expropriated, since the 1944 Decree had entered into force on 13 September 1944, i.e. after the date of the expropriation. 10.  On 9 January 1996 the Minister referred the case to the Siedlecki Governor. 11.  On 19 February 1996 the Siedlecki Governor gave a decision on the expropriation of the property in question, confirming that the property had been taken over by the State on 1 September 1944. 12.  On 27 February 1996 the applicant's mother appealed against the decision. 13.  On 7 March 1996 she reiterated her arguments. She added that the property in question had comprised a brickyard, a distillery, a glass-works and a power station and, should have therefore been as such, exempted from expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law. 14.  On 13 March 1996 the Minister of Agriculture informed K.A.P. that her appeal would be examined in the first quarter of 1997. 15.  On 20 March 1996 K.A.P. lodged a complaint with the Council of Ministers (Rada Ministrów) about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 16.  By a letter of 22 July 1996 the Office of the Council of Ministers (Biuro Rady Ministrów) requested the Minister of Agriculture to accelerate the proceedings. 17.  On 7 July 1997 K.A.P. enquired about the state of the proceedings pending before the Minister of Agriculture. 18.  On 11 August 1997 the Minister of Agriculture upheld the decision of 19 February 1996. 19.  The applicant's mother appealed. 20.  On 17 July 1998 she asked the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) about the state of the proceedings. 21.  Subsequently, by a letter of 25 November 1998, she complained to the Ombudsman about the excessive length of the proceedings. 22.  On 23 November 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both the 1997 decision of the Minister of Agriculture and the preceding decision of the Siedlecki Governor. It held that the administrative authorities had failed to address the applicant's arguments concerning the non agricultural status of certain components of the property. 23.  On 27 October 2000 the Lubelski Governor (the Siedleckie Province had ceased to exist in the meantime) gave a decision declaring that the property had been taken over by the State in 1944 without compensation. 24.  On 17 November 2000 K.A.P. lodged an appeal with the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi). 25.  On 19 February 2001 she lodged a complaint with the Prime Minister (Prezes Rady Ministrów) about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 26.  She further complained, on 30 March 2001, to the Council of Ministers, about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture. 27.  On 17 April 2001 the Chancellery of the Prime Minister (Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrów) requested the Minister of Agriculture to consider speeding up of the proceedings. 28.  On 30 May 2001 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development quashed the decision of 27 October 2000 and remitted the case. 29.  On 9 January 2002 the Lubelski Governor informed K.A.P. that her application would be examined by the end of March 2002, as further evidence had to be taken. 30.  On 23 April 2002 the Lubelski Governor informed K.A.P. that her application would be examined by the end of June 2002. 31.  On 15 July 2002 the Lubelski Governor stayed the proceedings and requested K.A.P. to provide evidence that she was a legal successor of L.B. She lodged an interlocutory appeal. 32.  On 6 November 2002 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed her interlocutory appeal. 33.  On 31 December 2002 K.A.P. appealed against this decision. 34.  On 1 May 2003 K.A.P. died. 35.  On 14 April 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) stayed the proceedings concerning suspension of the administrative proceedings, pending the termination of the inheritance proceedings after K.A.P.'s death. 36.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant, the legal successor of K.A.P., lodged a complaint with the Minister of Agriculture about the inactivity of the Lubelski Governor. 37.  On 14 November 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both the Minister's decision of 26 November 2002 and the Lubelski Governor's decision of 2002, by which the proceedings had been stayed. It noted that on 13 April 2000 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) had declared K.A.P. to be the legal successor of L.B. It held that the decisions to stay the proceedings had therefore been issued in breach of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, since the authorities should have been aware of the above-mentioned inheritance decision. 38.  Between August 2006 and October 2008 the Lubelski Governor tried to establish the whereabouts of any potential heirs of M.B. and H.L. 39.  On 9 August 2007 the applicant complained to the Lubelski Governor about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. 40.  On 13 September 2007 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by the end of 2007. 41.  On 31 December 2007 the Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by the end of February 2008. 42.  On 27 February 2008 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by 30 June 2008. 43.  On 3 April 2009 the Warsaw District Court decided that a trustee of an estate (kurator spadku) should be appointed in respect to parts of property owned by M.B. and H.L. 44.  On 21 April 2009 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that the dates and places of birth of both M.B. and H.L. were needed in order to declare them dead and to appoint a trustee of an estate. In these circumstances the new time limit for dealing with his application was set on 31 December 2009. 45.  On 11 January 2010 the Lubelski Governor informed the applicant that his application would be examined by 30 June 2010. 46.  On 24 May 2010 the Lubelski Governor discontinued the administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant complained about the decision to the Minister of Agriculture. 47.  The proceedings are still pending.