8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Ozorków, Poland. 9.  The applicant is the owner of a plot of land in Ozorków. Since 1989 construction works have been carried out by the applicant’s neighbours (J.C. and Z.W., F.W.) on their plots of land, adjoining his property. 10.  On 4 July 1989 the Mayor of Ozorków (Naczelnik Miasta) issued a planning permission concerning the construction of an outhouse (plan realizacyjny budynku gospodarczego) in favour of J.C. The applicant appealed. On 30 August 1989 the Łódź Municipal Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 1 June 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the contested decision. 11.  On 16 October 1992 the Mayor of Ozorków (Burmistrz) granted J.C. a building permit concerning the construction of an outhouse, a garage, a vestibule and a toilet adjacent to the existing house. 12.  On 18 June 1993 J.C. requested the Mayor of Ozorków to grant her a fresh building permit. This was granted on 23 June 1993. The new building permit was to “annul and replace” (“unieważnia i zastępuje”) the one issued on 16 October 1992. Both the applicant and J.C. appealed against the building permit of 23 June 1993. 13.  On 20 August 1993 the Łódź Governor (Wojewoda) quashed the decision of 23 June 1993 and remitted the case to the Mayor of Ozorków. 14.  In the meantime, on 21 June 1993, the Zgierz District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) had inspected J.C.’s construction site. On 24 June 1993 it ordered that the construction works concerning the adjacent dwelling be stayed. 15.  On 23 July 1993 the Łódź Governor reopened the proceedings relating to the building permit of 16 October 1992. On 17 September 1993 the Mayor of Ozorków issued two building permits in favour of J.C. The first permit allowed her to continue the construction of an adjacent dwelling and approved the planning permission. The second permit allowed J.C. to build an outhouse and a garage and approved the planning permission. 16.  The applicant appealed against both these decisions. He failed, however, to pay the fees due for lodging an appeal. As a consequence, on 6 November 1993, the Łódź Governor returned the appeal to the applicant. 17.  Later, the applicant appealed to the Minister of Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa). On 24 December 1993 the Minister set aside both decisions and ordered that the Łódź Governor should examine the merits of the appeal, notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to pay the fees. On 2 February 1994 the Łódź Governor upheld the contested decisions. 18.  On 3 October 1994, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision relating to the issue of the building permit in respect of the adjacent dwelling and declared null and void the building permit relating to the outhouse and the garage. The court found that the original decision of 16 October 1992 was still in force as the decision of 23 June 1993 had been quashed on 20 August 1993. 19.  As a consequence, on 15 February 1995, the Łódź Governor quashed the decision granting the building permit of 16 October 1992 and remitted the case to the Mayor of Ozorków. 20.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Łódź Governor, alleging inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Ozorków. On 1 June 1995 the Łódź Governor found that the applicant’s complaint was indeed well-founded and obliged the Mayor of Ozorków to render a decision before 14 June 1995. 21.  On 9 August 1995 the Mayor of Ozorków issued a building permit authorising J.C. “to continue the construction of the outhouse and the garage”. The applicant appealed against this decision. 22.  On 18 September 1995 the Łódź Governor set aside the impugned decision and discontinued the proceedings before the Mayor of Ozorków. 23.  On 17 October 1995 the Mayor of Ozorków issued a decision authorising J.C. to use the adjacent dwelling. The applicant appealed against this decision. 24.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Ozorków. The complaint was dismissed on 10 January 1996. 25.  On 29 February 1996 the Chief Inspector of the Construction Supervision (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego), of his own motion, declared the decision of 15 February 1995 null and void. 26.  On 26 July 1996 the Łódź Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki), having regard to the latter decision, stayed two sets of proceedings instituted upon the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of 9 August and 17 October 1995. The applicant appealed against these decisions but his appeals were dismissed on 29 and 30 August 1996 respectively. 27.  On 14 November 1996, upon the applicant’s request, proceedings leading to the verification of the validity of the decision of 29 February 1996 were instituted. 28.  It appears that at the same time the applicant repeatedly requested the authorities to intervene with regard to the construction in question and to order a so‑called “compulsory demolition” (przymusowa rozbiórka). On 9 December 1996 the Ozorków Municipal Office refused to take any steps in respect of the applicant’s above request. 29.  Apparently, the works were continued at least until 24 May 1997 when the Mayor of Ozorków ordered that they be stayed. The applicant appealed against this decision and requested that a demolition order be issued. On 13 June 1997 the Łódź Governor set aside the decision staying the construction and discontinued the proceedings. 30.  On 28 May 1997, after having reopened the proceedings, the Mayor of Ozorków set aside the building permit issued on 16 October 1992 and discontinued the proceedings in this respect. 31.  On 16 September 1997 the Łódź Governor decided, of his own motion, to resume two sets of appeal proceedings, which had been stayed on 26 July 1996. On 18 September 1997, the Łódź Governor set aside two decisions of the Mayor of Ozorków of 9 August and 17 October 1995. The Łódź Governor discontinued the proceedings in these two cases. 32.  On 22 October 1997 the Mayor of Ozorków issued a building permit authorising J.C. to continue the construction of the outhouse and the garage. 33.  On 25 October 1997 the Mayor authorised J.C. to use the adjacent dwelling. 34.  On 26 January 1998 the Łódź Governor rejected the applicant’s appeal against both decisions of the Mayor. The applicant filed two further appeals with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decisions of the Governor. 35.  On 18 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Łódź Governor and the earlier decision of the Mayor of Ozorków of 22 October 1997. The case was remitted to the Mayor of Ozorków. 36.  It appears that the proceedings are pending. 37.  Z.W. and F.W. built a house under a building permit issued on an unspecified date before 1990. Apparently, they also built an outhouse (budynek gospodarczy), adjoining the applicant’s dwelling house. On 7 March 1990 the Mayor of Ozorków ordered that the outhouse be demolished. 38.  On 6 December 1990 the Mayor of Ozorków decided to reopen the proceedings relating to the demolition order and altered the decision of 7 March 1990. He authorised Z.W. and F.W. to use the outhouse. 39.  On 6 March 1991, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Łódź Governor quashed the contested decision and discontinued the proceedings. On the same date the Łódź Governor quashed the demolition order of 7 March 1990 and remitted the case to the first-instance organ. 40.  On 17 January 1992 the Mayor of Ozorków granted Z.W. and F.W. a permit to use the outhouse and the garage. 41.  On 17 March 1992, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Łódź Governor quashed the contested decision and referred the case to the Zgierz District Office (Urząd Rejonowy). 42.  On 28 April 1992 the Zgierz District Office ordered that the outhouse and the garage be demolished by 30 September 1992. 43.  On 29 June 1992, upon an appeal filed by Z.W. and F.W., the Łódź Governor upheld the demolition order. 44.  Since Z.W. and F.W. had not complied with the order, enforcement proceedings were instituted by the Zgierz District Office on 29 December 1992. On the same date the Zgierz District Office imposed a fine on Z.W and F.W. for non-compliance with the order. The Łódź Governor dismissed their appeal against this decision on 30 March 1993. 45.  On 16 April 1993 the Zgierz District Office again imposed a fine on Z.W and F.W. Their appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Łódź Governor on 12 July 1993. 46.  On 14 July 1993, upon Z.W.’s and F.W.’s request, the Łódź Governor reopened the proceedings concerning the construction of the outhouse and the garage and referred the case to the Mayor of Ozorków. 47.  On 16 July 1993 the Mayor of Ozorków issued a decision authorising Z.W. and F.W. to use the outhouse as a dwelling. The applicant appealed against this decision. 48.  On an unspecified date, upon Z.W.’s and F.W.’s requests, the Zgierz District Office instituted proceedings concerning the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings instituted under the demolition order of 28 April 1992. On 27 August 1993 these proceedings were stayed since the legality of the permit of 16 July 1993 had in the meantime been called in question by the Ozorków Municipal Office (of its own motion). 49.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging inactivity on the part of the Łódź Governor. The complaint was rejected on 3 October 1994. 50.  On 4 October 1993 the Łódź Governor, acting of his own motion, declared the permit of 16 July 1993 null and void. 51.  On 1 March 1995 the Chief Inspector of the Construction Supervision quashed the decision of the Łódź Governor of 4 October 1993 and discontinued the proceedings. The Chief Inspector found that since the applicant had appealed against the decision of 16 July 1993, his appeal should have been examined. On 9 June 1995 the Łódź Governor set aside the contested decision and discontinued the proceedings. 52.  On 26 June 1995 Z.W. requested the Chief Inspector of the Construction Supervision to declare the demolition order null and void. On 25 November 1995 her request was dismissed. Z.W. appealed but on 6 February 1996 the Chief Inspector upheld his decision. 53.  Later, Z.W. filed a further appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 30 December 1997 her appeal was dismissed. 54.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Zgierz District Office to enforce the demolition order. On 30 April 1998 the District Office informed him that his request could not be dealt with within a statutory time-limit of one month as the explanatory proceedings had to be carried out; however, the request would be dealt with by 30 May 1998. 55.  On 7 May 1998 the Zgierz District Office imposed yet another fine on Z.W. and F.W. for non-compliance with the demolition order. On 22 October 1998 the Łódź Governor upheld the decision of 7 May 1998. 56.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging inactivity on the part of the Head of the Zgierz District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) in enforcing the demolition order. 57.  On 17 November 1999 the Zgierz Local Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) issued a writ of enforcement (tytuł wykonawczy) against Z.W. and F.W. It also imposed a fine on them. 58.  On 23 February 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the inactivity of the Zgierz District Office in enforcing the demolition order. It found that the enforcement proceedings had lasted unjustifiably long and that they should be completed as soon as possible. However, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the inactivity of the respondent authority was not established and that the District Office had recently taken decisions aimed at enforcement of the demolition order which could lead to its actual execution in the nearest future. 59.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending.