5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lived in Jankowice, Poland. 6.  On 6 February 1973 the applicant applied to the Gliwice District Commission for Mining Damage (Okręgowa Komisja do Spraw Szkód Górniczych) for compensation for damage caused to her property and her plantation of fruit trees. The case was directed against the Rybnik Mining Company “Chwalowice”. 7.  Between 20 September 1982 and 21 October 1991 the applicant on five occasions lodged similar applications. 8.  On 15 January 1990 the District Commission for Mining Damage examined one of her applications. It partly allowed it and awarded the applicant compensation. 9.  It appears that following the applicant's appeal, on 12 November 1991, the District Commission for Mining Damage amended its own decision. 10.  The applicant appealed against this decision. She submitted, inter alia, that the Commission failed to examine her four applications lodged in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1988. 11.  On 30 September 1992 the Katowice Appellate Commission for Mining Damage (Odwoławcza Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the District Commission. It ordered the Commission to examine all applications for compensation lodged by the applicant between 1973 and 1991. 12.  On 24 March 1993 the District Commission for Mining Damage gave its decision. The applicant appealed against it. 13.  On 2 September 1994 a new law entered into force which provided that the civil courts would be competent to examine the applications for compensation for mining damage and abolished the Commissions for Mining Damage (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994, Prawo geologiczne i górnicze). 14.  Accordingly, the applicant's case was transferred to the Rybnik District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) which, on 24 January 1995, decided that the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) would be competent to examine the case. 15.  On 5 April 1995 the court held a hearing. 16.  Between 7 June 1995 and 4 April 1996 the proceedings were stayed since the applicant's counsel had apparently failed to specify her claims. 17.  Subsequently, the trial court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. 18.  On 19 November 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. 19.  On 20 December 1996 the trial court held the second hearing at which it heard the expert. The court further decided to prepare another expert opinion. 20.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant challenged the trial judge on the grounds that as a former member of the District Commission for Mining Damage he had given decisions in her case. 21.  On 28 March 1997 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the challenge. 22.  On 28 May 1997 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing and on 4 June 1997 it gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant's action and awarded her compensation for damage sustained between 1972 and 1996. 23.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. 24.  On 20 January 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and on 29 January 1998 it quashed a part of the impugned judgment and remitted it to the Regional Court. The appellate court upheld the remainder of the judgment. 25.  On 11 March 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). 26.  At the hearing held on 22 April 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed her cassation appeal. 27.  Following the partial remittal of the case, the Katowice Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 22 December 1999. It appears that this hearing was adjourned. Subsequently, the court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. 28.  On 15 March 2000 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing at which it gave judgment. 29.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. 30.  On 4 August 2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. The appellate court established that the trial court had failed to inform the applicant and her representative about the hearings. As a result, the court quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court. 31.  On 13 December 2000 a hearing was held. 32.  On 1 February 2001, the court ordered that another expert opinion be prepared. Subsequently, on several occasions, the court asked the expert to finish preparation of his opinion. 33.  On 23 November 2001 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. Both parties challenged it. 34.  On 25 January, 19 April, 24 May and 13 December 2002 the court held hearings. It ordered several new expert opinions. 35.  On 20 December 2002 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant's action. 36.  On 8 February 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. 37.  On 9 October 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. The appellate court quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court. 38.  The proceedings are pending before the Katowice Regional Court.