Article 6 of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it does not infringe Article 6 of the Convention (right to a court) where a party may appeal against an administrative decision to a court (cf. Bistrović v. Croatia; cf. Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium). It is sufficient for the ECtHR to ensure that judicial review includes not only the law but also the facts. According to the ECtHR, it is not necessary for the court to make findings of fact itself. I will give an example from a native practice: The property was expropriated for public use in 2015. To this day, the Mokotów District Office has not issued a decision on compensation, did not even value the property. As you know, for the entire period of five years and beyond, NO interest is due. Due to the chronic nature, the governor ordered the Office to issue a decision within two months.

The Office “carried out the recommendation” of the Voivode – issued a decision to discontinue the proceedings (there are no grounds for this). I believe that the Right to a General Court is only a right if:
(a) the absence of a SUBSTANTIVE administrative decision within 2 months entitles the party to a SUBSTANTIVE decision by the court
(b) in the proceedings before the court, everyone will be able to demand that all the evidence be carried out by the court (especially the expert opinion). Any other review is a FICTION of the right to a court.