5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki. 6.  On 27 August 1992 the applicant and K. P., disguised as police officers, requested A. J. and Z. T. to present their car registration documents for inspection. Subsequently, as it transpires from the case file, the applicant, assisted by K. P., seized the car and drove away. 7.  On 27 August 1992 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant and K. P. by the Suwałki District Prosecutor's Office. 8.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant was committed for trial before the Suwałki District Court on a charge of car theft. 9.  On 18 February 1995 a burglary was committed at the Suwałki District Court building and the case documents were stolen. 10.  On 15 March 1995 proceedings to have the case documents reconstructed were initiated and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended. 11.  On 23 December 1996 the Suwałki District Court decided that the case documents had been partly reconstructed. The applicant appealed. 12.  On 3 February 1997 the Suwałki Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision. 13.  On 14 February 1997 the Suwałki District Court scheduled a first hearing for 6 March 1997. 14.  On 6 March 1997 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were reopened and the first hearing took place. 15.  Several subsequent hearings in the case, inter alia those of 24 April, 5 June and 26 September 1997 and 4 June 1998, were adjourned because witnesses or the accused failed to appear. 16.  On 3 December 1998 the Suwałki District Court decided to have the proceedings suspended as one of the accused, K. P., had gone into hiding. 17.  On 25 January 2007 the criminal proceedings were reopened by decision of the Suwałki District Court, as K. P. had been found. He was taken to a hearing under police escort. 18.  On 23 May 2007 the Suwałki District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings as the charges against the applicant had become time‑barred. That decision became final on 31 May 2007. 19.  On 23 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Suwałki Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Suwałki District Court had been excessive.
On 26 June 2007 the Suwałki Regional Court, while admitting that the proceedings in the case had been unreasonably lengthy, dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court found, following the Supreme Court's decisions in respect of the interpretation of the 2004 Act that the purpose of the remedies provided by the 2004 Act was not to have an unreasonable length declared and damages awarded but to accelerate the course of pending proceedings. The court concluded that as the proceedings had eventually been discontinued, the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to the 2004 Act had served its purpose. It was accordingly unfounded and had to be dismissed.