4.  The applicants, Mr Wiesław Pióro, and Mrs Barbara Łukasik, are siblings. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1930 and 1933 respectively. The first applicant died on 4 November 2003. His wife, two daughters and his grandson expressed a wish to continue the application in his stead. The second applicant lives in Warsaw, Poland. 5.  On 22 November 1944 the applicants’ father’s land “Terebella” was expropriated for the purpose of an agrarian reform programme. On 8 May 1946 the Lublin Regional Land Office (Wojewódzki Urząd Ziemski) declared that the provisions on agrarian reform did not apply to the property in question, and therefore the applicants’ father was entitled to compensation. On 29 January 1949 the Minister of Agriculture quashed this decision and declared that “Terebella” had been expropriated for the purpose of agrarian reform. 6.  On 20 May 1994 the applicants filed a motion for annulment of the 1949 decision. 7.  On 5 September 1996 the Minister of Agriculture refused to declare the decision of 1949 null and void. On 8 October 1996 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). 8.  On 27 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected their appeal on the ground that they had failed to exhaust the available remedies i.e. they had not filed a request with the Minister for reconsideration of his decision. 9.  On 15 May 1998 the applicants applied to the Minister of Agriculture for leave to file out of time a motion for reconsideration (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy) of the decision of 5 September 1996. 10.  On 22 March 2000 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. 11.  On 12 May 2000 the Minister upheld the decision of 5 September 1996. The applicants lodged an appeal against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 3 November 2000 the court quashed the Minister’s decision of 12 May 2000 and remitted the case. 12.  On 27 March 2001 the second applicant asked the Minister to comply with the judgment of 3 November 2000 and to give a decision without delay. On 24 May 2001 she complained to the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. On 19 October 2001 she again asked the court to proceed with her case. 13.  On 14 November 2001 the Minister of Agriculture stayed the proceedings in the applicants’ case awaiting a report of an expert in geology. 14.  On 3 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the Minister’s inactivity. On 10 January 2002 the second applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture to stay the proceedings. 15.  On 7 February 2002 the Minister resumed the proceedings as the awaited expert report had been submitted. 16.  On 25 June 2002 the Minister gave a decision on the merits upholding his previous decision of 5 September 1996. 17.  On 23 July 2002 the second applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 25 June 2002. 18.  On 11 February 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court gave judgment quashing the challenged decision of the Minister. 19.  On 30 April 2004 the Minister of Agriculture refused to annul the decision of 29 January 1949 on the ground that the contested decision had been issued in accordance with the law. The Minister upheld his decision on 18 November 2004. 20.  Upon an appeal by the second applicant, on 24 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister.
 21.  On 3 November 2005 the Minister of Agriculture refused once more to annul the original decision of 1949. 23.  By letter of 6 November 2006 the Minister of Agriculture asked the Lublin Voivodeship Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) for the clarification of certain issues concerning the “Terebella” land. 24.  On 30 July 2007 the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged that the 1949 decision had been issued in breach of the procedural law but refused to declare it null and void on the ground that it had produced irreversible effects. 26.  The authorities instructed the applicants to proceed with a claim for compensation for the unlawfully expropriated land under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, applicable to the applicants’ case by virtue of Article 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on certain amendments to the Civil Code and other acts. The applicants were further instructed that, in the event they were not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative proceedings for compensation, they were free to file with a civil court an action for tort under Article 417 of the Civil Code. 27.  On 25 January 2008 the applicants filed with the Minister of Agriculture a claim for compensation for the unlawfully expropriated land. The proceedings are currently pending.