6.  The applicant lives in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland. 7.  On 28 December 1993 the applicant sued the Polmozbyt State Enterprise ("the Polmozbyt") in the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking return of payment made for an allegedly defective car. 8.  On 21 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion to be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28 September 1994. 9.  On 18 January 1995, FSO Warszawa, the manufacturer of the car, joined the proceedings as an intervener (interwenient uboczny) on behalf of the defendant. 10.  The court held hearings on 30 June, 9 August and 6 October 1995. 11.  On 19 October 1995 the court ordered that another expert opinion be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 29 November 1995. On 1 March and 29 April 1996 the court held hearings. 12.  On 2 July 1996 the court requested the laboratory of the Łódź Regional Police Headquarters (Wojewódzka Komenda Policji) to prepare an expert report in respect of the defects of the car paint. On 25 July 1996 the laboratory informed the court that it was not competent to prepare the report. On 23 December 1996 the court quashed its order of 2 July 1996. On the same date it also ordered that the report at issue be obtained from the Institute of Forensic Experts (Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych) in Cracow. The applicant could not place his car at the disposal of the Institute because the car registration book had not been renewed due to technical defects of the car. 13.  The court held hearings on 5 December 1997 and on 20 January, 24 February and 22 September 1999. 14.  On 29 September 1999 the Łódź District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. On 16 February 2000 the applicant asked the court to grant him leave to appeal out of time. On 20 June 2000 the court refused his request.