4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Białystok. 5.  On 15 December 1994 the applicant brought before the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action for payment against Ms K. S-O. The defendant owned a company producing kitchen furniture and allegedly failed to carry out a contract that she had concluded with the applicant; the latter sought reimbursement of sustained costs and damages. 6.  The court held the first hearing on 30 March 1995. 7.  On 30 November 1995 the Białystok District Court gave a judgment. 8.  The defendant appealed. 9.  On 10 May 1996 the Bialstok Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. 10.  The first hearing was held in September 1996. 11.  On 16 April 1997 the Białystok District Court gave a judgment in which it granted the applicant's action and ordered the defendant to pay her 1,400 Polish zlotys (PLN) together with interest from 1994. 12.  The defendant appealed against the judgment. 13.  On 17 October 1997 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. 14.  On 27 October 1997 the court declared that the decision was enforceable (klauzula wykonalności). 15.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant obtained a decision that the judgment was also enforceable against the defendant's husband. 16.  Subsequently different court bailiffs were responsible for enforcement of the final judgment of 16 April 1997. The applicant complained that their actions were inefficient and that the enforcement proceedings had been lengthy. 17.  On 5 May 2004 the bailiff again attempted to enforce payment from the defendant in the sum of PLN 10,000. 18.  It appears that on 21 April 2005 the court bailiff discontinued this set of enforcement proceedings after having established that the defendant had no assets. However, subsequently, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings aiming at enforcement of the judgment of 16 April 1997. 19.  The Government submitted that on 18 December 2006 the bailiff had finally discontinued all pending sets of enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not contest this submission. 20.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Białystok District Court a civil claim for damages under section 16 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”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. She sought compensation for damages suffered due to the excessive length of proceedings. The action was directed against two court bailiffs and the State Treasury represented by the President of the Białystok District Court. 21.  On 21 October 2005 the court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. Subsequently, the applicant extended her claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to PLN 23,000. 22.  On 29 September 2006 the Białystok District Court granted the applicant's action and awarded the applicant PLN 3,192 compensation. The court examined the judicial phase of the proceedings and considered there had been no delays attributable to the courts. However, it found delays and shortcomings on the part of the court bailiff at the enforcement stage of the proceedings. 23.  The applicant and the defendants lodged appeals against the judgment. On 8 November 2006 the applicant was exempted from court fees for pursuing her appeal. 24.  At the hearing held on 20 March 2007 the Białystok Regional Court gave a judgment in which it upheld the first-instance judgment but increased the sum of compensation awarded to the applicant to PLN 6,818 [approximately 1,700 euros (EUR)]. The court considered that the applicant had sustained damage in the higher amount and that the court's bailiff had been responsible for other delays and shortcomings. The applicant and her representative were present at the hearing at which the court had read out the operative part of the judgment and had given the main grounds. It also informed the parties that no further appeal lay against the judgment. 25.  The applicant applied for written reasons of the judgment to be prepared and delivered to her and her representative. 26.  The judgment with written reasons was notified to the applicant's representative on 5 April 1997.