4.  On 19 January 1990 the Józefów Municipality Representative approved an initial development project (plan zabudowy) and permitted the construction of a house on a plot of land adjacent to that of the applicant. 5.  On 29 May 1992 the applicant’s neighbour was ordered by the authorities to demolish some of the appurtenances (including an outhouse) that had been built without a permit. 6.  On 26 April 1993 a building permit for a cesspit was issued to the neighbour. The applicant appealed in writing against the construction of the cesspit, as it was to be placed close to where she lived. She also did not agree to the construction of an outhouse on the neighbouring plot. 7.  On 31 October 1996 the Józefów Municipality Representative ordered the demolition of the outhouse, as it had been built unlawfully and had been contested by the applicant. 8.  The applicant appealed against the decision, arguing, inter alia, that it had not indicated the time-limit for its implementation and failed to deal with all the issues she had raised, in particular the problem of the cesspit. She also complained to a higher authority about the delay in dealing with the case. On 23 April 1997 the Warsaw Governor’s Office quashed the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. 9.  On 16 January 1998, following the applicant’s complaint about the inactivity of the authorities, the Warsaw Governor ordered the Józefów Municipal Office to examine the applicant’s case within a 14 day time‑limit. 10.  On 6 February 1998 the Municipal Office granted the applicant’s neighbour permission to use the cesspit, an outhouse and a stone fence adjacent to the road. It found that they had been built in accordance with building principles and had posed no threat to their users or to the environment. The applicant appealed, requesting that the outhouse and internal fence be demolished and the leak‑tightness of the cesspit be checked. 11.  On 22 October 1998 the Warsaw Governor quashed the decision of 6 February 1998. The Governor stated that the decision failed to take into account the applicant’s allegations concerning, in particular, the leaking of the cesspit and remitted the case for reconsideration. 12.  On 1 March 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s neighbour’s complaint against the decision of 22 October 1998. 13.  On 13 June 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Józefów Municipal Office to accelerate the administrative proceedings. 14.  On 26 June 2000 the Municipal Office granted the neighbour permission to use the cesspit and other outbuildings. 15.  The decision was quashed on 23 February 2001 by the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office and remitted for reconsideration. 16.  On 3 December 2002 the neighbour’s appeal against the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office’s decision was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court. 17.  On 30 May 2003 the Józefów Municipal Office granted the neighbour permission to use the outhouse. The applicant appealed. 18.  On 6 January 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Chief Building Inspector to set a time-limit for the examination of her appeal. 19.  On 27 February 2004 the Mazowiecki Building Inspector quashed the decision of 30 May 2003 and remitted the case for re‑examination. He observed that it had not been possible to establish whether the impugned decision concerned the same constructions which should have been demolished on the basis of the decision given on 29 May 1992. There had also been no proof that the decision of 29 May 1992 had ever been quashed. It was observed that the constructions in dispute that predated 1994 (inter alia, a stone wall) should have been dealt with in a separate set of proceedings. 20.  On 18 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s neighbour’s appeal against the decision of 27 February 2004. The court agreed with the Building Inspector that the question of the execution of the decision of 25 May 1992 should have been examined and the evidence gathering in this respect supplemented. 2. Administrative proceedings following the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 18 April 2005
(a) Proceedings concerning the execution of the decision of 25 May 1992 21.  Following the remittal of the case by the Supreme Administrative Court, the subsequent proceedings concerning the unlawfully built outhouse were conducted by the District Building Inspector. On 12 February 2006 he ordered the Józefów Municipal Office to provide information as to whether the decision of 25 May 1992 had become final. If so, the municipality was ordered to submit documents showing whether that decision had been executed or not. 22.  On 31 January 2006 the Office informed the Inspector that it was not able to provide the requested information as it did not have the complete case file. 23.  On 20 November 2006 the District Building Inspector stayed the proceedings pending receipt of information from the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office as to whether any appellate proceedings had been brought against the decision given in 1992. 24.  On 19 March 2007 the Governor’s Office replied that it had not retained files concerning appeals older than 5 years. 27. On 17 October 2006, as no decision concerning the cesspit had yet been given, the applicant’s lawyer requested the District Building Inspector’s Office to accelerate the procedure. 28.  On 20 November 2006 the Building Inspector ordered the parties to pay an advance fee for the costs of the proceedings. 29.  On 7 February 2007 the neighbours submitted an expert opinion stating that the cesspit was in a good technical state and was safe. 30.  On 27 August 2007 the Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings, relying on the conclusions of the expert opinion. The applicant appealed. 32.  The applicant was informed of the possibility of lodging an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court, but failed to do so.
(c) Proceedings concerning other constructions on a neighbouring plot 33.  While awaiting the administrative decision relating to the use of the cesspit and the outhouse, the applicant’s neighbour erected the outhouse and the stone barrier attached to it, building a wall about 3 to 4 metres high along the border between their plots and directly in front of the windows of the applicant’s house. 34.  On 15 and 25 May 1998 two expert opinions were prepared at the applicant’s request, stating that the wall seriously interfered with the use of her property. In particular, the experts stressed that the wall was causing decay to a line of trees on the applicant’s land. These trees were, according to the experts, of environmental importance to the area. 35.  On 28 August 1998 the applicant lodged an application with the Józefów Municipality Representative to have the wall brought into conformity with building regulations. 36.  Following the applicant’s intervention, on 6 October 1998, the Warsaw Governor ordered the Józefów Municipal Office to examine her application within 14 days. 37.  On 15 October 1998 the Municipal Office refused to institute administrative proceedings, arguing that a building permit was not required to construct a fence. 38.  On 31 March 1999 the Mazowiecki Governor quashed the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. 39.  On 13 June 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the neighbour’s appeal against the decision of 31 March 1999. 40.  On 22 March 2002 the Regional Building Inspector ordered that the wall be partly demolished, so as to comply with the height requirement of 2.20 metres. He found that the construction was 27.50 metres long and had been built up to 2.73 metres. It constituted a wall rather than a fence and as such required a building permit. 41.  On 31 October 2002 the order was quashed by the Mazowiecki Building Inspector on the ground that the construction had pre‑dated the entry into force of the 1997 amendment to the 1994 Building Act and discontinued the proceedings. In the written grounds for his decision, the Building Inspector pointed out that until the entry into force of the amendment in question, the construction of fences had not required building permits or notifications. 42.  On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Mazowiecki Building Inspector of 31 October 2002. However, the court suggested that further proceedings should be conducted concerning the nature, height, location and technical state of the wall. 43.  Following the explanatory proceedings and the inspection of the plot, on 29 August 2005 the District Inspector ordered the applicant’s neighbour to make some technical alterations to the wall or to replace it by a plastic fence of the same height.