4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sulejówek. 5.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant lodged an application for division of an inheritance with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 6.  On 7 November 1997 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings. It referred to the fact that related criminal proceedings concerning fraudulent acquisition of land, which could affect the outcome of the case, had first to be terminated. 7.  On 9 February 1998 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be resumed. 8.  On 3 July 1998 the court refused that request. 9.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Warsaw District Court about the delays in the proceedings. On 14 July 1998 the court informed her that the proceedings would be resumed after the criminal proceedings had been terminated. 10.  On 3 August 2000 the court refused to resume the proceedings. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. The applicant referred to the fact that the prosecution had discontinued the investigation. 11.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant asked once more for the proceedings to be resumed, to no avail. 12.  The proceedings were resumed on 14 February 2002. 13.  On 30 June 2004 the Warsaw District Court ruled that some of the issues raised in the application, concerning the acquisition of property, should be examined in separate proceedings. Consequently, part of the claim, concerning the expropriation of property, was referred to the Warsaw District Court as a separate case. The applicant appealed. On 26 July 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. 14.  On 25 October 2004 the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property. The applicant appealed. 15.  On 24 October 2006 the Regional Court quashed that decision and resumed the examination of the case. It referred to the fact that the District Court had erroneously referred part of the claim to other proceedings. It relied on the need to examine both cases simultaneously within the scope of the same proceedings. 16.  On 9 May 2007 the court stayed the proceedings because the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property were pending before the appellate court. 17.  The case is still pending before the District Court. 18.  On 2 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court, alleging a breach of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. She relied on section 2 of the Act 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”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. 19.  On 9 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court. It awarded the applicant 200 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 50 euros (EUR)) by way of just satisfaction. The court referred to the resolution of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) of 18 January 2005 (no. III SPP 113/04) in which it ruled that while the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force, its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. The Regional Court held that the overall length of the proceedings before the District Court had been excessive, there had been long periods of inactivity and the hearings had not been held on a regular basis. These delays had taken place before the date of entry into force the 2004 Act and had not been remedied afterwards.
Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having analysed all the circumstances of the case it found this amount to be sufficient for the applicant.