4.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Łódź, Poland. 5.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant asked the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office (Urząd do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) to grant him “veteran status.” 6.  The President of the Office informed the applicant that his application was not complete and should be submitted first to a local veterans association. 7.  On 2 October 1993, after having contacted the Łódź District Veterans Association, the applicant lodged for the second time an application with the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office concerning his “veteran status.” 8.  The Office failed to issue a decision and informed the applicant that he should first lodge an application with the World Veteran Association. 9.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Office with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 24 June 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed his complaint and ordered the Office to give a decision within two months. The court established that the applicant’s application of 2 October 1993 had satisfied legal requirements and that the Office should have given a decision on merits instead of asking the applicant to fulfil other conditions. 10.  On 8 February and 3 April 1995 the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office requested the applicant to submit additional documents concerning his case. The applicant complied with the requests. 11.  On 4 July 1995 the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office gave a decision in which he refused to grant the applicant “veteran status”. The Office found that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of his participation in the Polish Defence War in September 1939. 12.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. 13.  On 5 March 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first-instance authority. The court found that the Office had not examined the case properly and, in particular, had not heard the applicant despite his several applications and had not heard other soldiers who had allegedly fought with him. 14.  Since the Office had failed to give a decision, on 11 July 1996 the applicant complained about this inactivity to the Supreme Administrative Court. At the hearing held on 10 January 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the allegations concerning the inactivity of the authority since it established that the Office had been collecting additional evidence in the applicant’s case. 15.  On 28 May 1997 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office. On 6 February 1998, the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings because in the meantime, on 3 December 1997, the President had given a decision. In this decision the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office again dismissed the applicant’s application to grant him “veteran status.” 16.  On 16 December 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision by lodging an application for the case to be reconsidered by the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office. 17.  On 24 June 1998 the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 18.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. 19.  On 4 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. The applicant was notified about this decision on 23 June 2000.