4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kraków. 5.  On an unspecified date the applicant became a party to proceedings for division of joint property. 6.  On 18 December 1995 the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a severance order and decided to examine the applicant’s motion in separate proceedings. 7.  From that date the proceedings have been pending before the first‑instance court. 8.  The applicant lodged three complaints under section 5 of 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”). 9.  In his complaint of 26 November 2008 he sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. 10.  On 2 February 2009 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the complaint. It found that the length of the proceedings had been partly attributable to the parties who had requested adjournment of three hearings. One hearing was adjourned due to the absence of one of the parties’ lawyers. The court also considered that the impugned proceedings had been complex. At the same time, however, it found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Kraków District Court, acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant PLN 1,000 which it considered “adequate in view of the periods of inactivity found.” 11.  On 7 July 2010 the Kraków Regional Court allowed another applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act. The court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation. 12.  In 2012 the applicant again lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act. He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 20,000 in compensation. 13.  On 14 August 2012 the Kraków Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation. In the Regional Court’s view the trial court had failed to act in an effective and diligent manner, in particular in the light of the overall length of the proceedings in issue.