4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Tuchola. 5.  On 19 December 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment of just satisfaction before the Tuchola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the State Treasury, represented by the Bydgoszcz and Poznań branches of the Polish Television Company. 6.  On 16 January 2003 the case was transmitted to the Poznań District Court. The applicant appealed against that decision and, on 24 March 2003, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) sent the case back to the Bydgoszcz District Court. 7.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant was requested to pay court fees of 1,500 Polish zlotys (PLN). 8.  On 28 May 2003 the applicant requested the court to exempt him from court fees. 9.  On 16 June 2003 the Bydgoszcz District Court granted the applicant legal aid. 10.  On 14 August 2003 a lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant. The applicant informed the court that he had requested exemption from court fees and that he had not asked for legal aid. 11.  Consequently, on 23 August 2003, the Bydgoszcz District Court quashed its decision of 16 June 2003 granting the applicant legal aid. 12.  On 2 September 2003 the Bydgoszcz District Court requested the applicant to rectify some procedural shortcomings in his claim. 13.  On 15 September 2003 the shortcomings were rectified. 14.  On 16 October 2003 the first defendant, the Bydgoszcz branch of the Polish Television Company, submitted its defence. 15.  On 1 December 2003 the second defendant, the Poznań branch of the Polish Television Company, submitted its defence. 16.  On 3 February 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time-limit for submitting his comments on the defendants’ pleadings. 17.  On 5 March 2004 the applicant submitted his comments and maintained his claim. 18.  On an unspecified date the reporting judge was replaced by another judge. 19.  On 5 July 2004 the court listed a hearing for 13 September 2004. At the request of the defendants’ lawyer, the trial was adjourned until 18 November 2004. 20.  On 18 November 2004 the hearing was postponed until 13 January 2005. 21.  At the hearing held on 13 January 2005 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision transmitting the case to the Bydgoszcz Regional Court. 22.  The next hearing was listed for 4 March 2005. 23.  At a hearing held on 4 March 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court found that it was not competent to deal with the subject-matter and transmitted the case to the Poznań Regional Court. 24.  On 22 March 2005 the Poznań Regional Court transmitted the case to the Poznań District Court. 25.  On 9 September 2005 the Poznań District Court listed a hearing for 16 November 2005. 26.  On 16 November 2005 the Poznań District Court stayed the proceedings because both parties had failed to appear. According to the applicant, he failed to appear because he had not been informed of the hearing date. 27.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and to transfer the case for examination by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court. 28.  On 27 December 2007 the Poznań District Court resumed the proceedings and dismissed the applicant’s request as regards the transfer of the case to the Regional Court. 29.  The proceedings are still pending before the Poznań District Court. 30.  On 4 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) under section 5 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”). 31.  On 20 May 2005 the Poznań Regional Court rejected his complaint on account of a procedural mistake. 32.  On an unspecified date the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Court under section 5 of the 2004 Act. He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Bydgoszcz District Court, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court and the Poznań Regional Court had been excessive and awarding him just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approximately 2,850 euros (EUR )). 33.  On 21 March 2006 the Poznań Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Bydgoszcz District Court, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity between 16 April 2003 and 13 January 2005. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 285) in just satisfaction. 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”. Relying on section 4 of the 2004 Act, which provides that the complaint should be examined by the court immediately above the court conducting the impugned proceedings, the court refused to acknowledge the excessive length of the proceedings before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court and the Poznań Regional Court.