4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Łomża. 5.  On 7 March 1991 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings. She sought compensation for the expropriation of her real property which took place on 16 October 1957 by a decision of the Presidium of the Regional National Council (Prezydium Wojewódzkiej Rady Narodowej). 6.  On 11 June 1991 the Director of the Łomża District Office refused to grant the applicant compensation for the expropriated real estate. She appealed. 7.  On 25 September 1991 the Łomża Governor upheld the Council’s decision. 8.  On 23 January 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for compensation. Following a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on 15 May 1994 the applicant requested that the property in question be returned to her. 9.  On 29 July 1994 the Director of the Łomża District Office refused to restore the property. It was found that the property had been used in accordance with the provisions of the original decision of 16 October 1957. 10.  On 28 September 1994 the Łomża Governor upheld the director’s decision. The applicant appealed. 11.  On 10 February 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 12.  Subsequently on an unspecified date in July 1997 the applicant made a request to the Łomża Governor to have the original decision of 16 October 1957 declared null and void pursuant to Article 156 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP). 13.  On 6 August 1997 the Łomża Governor dismissed her request. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 24 June 1998 the proceedings were discontinued by a decision of the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development. It was established that after the entry into force on 1 January 1998 of the Land Administration Act of 21 August 1997 (Ustawa o gospodarce nieruchomościami) the Łomża Governor was no longer competent to examine the applicant’s appeal. In this decision the President designated himself as the competent authority and subsequently on 22 July 1998, at the applicant’s request, resumed the examination of the case. 15.  On 18 October 1999 the President granted the applicant’s request to declare the decision of 1957 null and void and quashed the decision. 16.  On 8 November 1999 the Łomża Administration Board (Zarząd Miasta) requested to have the case re-examined, contesting the reasoning given for the President’s decision. 17.  On 30 October 2000 the President upheld his decision. 18.  On 16 January 2001 the Łomża Administration Board filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. 19.  On 23 August 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the appealed decision and remitted the case. 20.  On 8 November 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development, having re-examined the case, refused to quash the decision of 16 October 1957. 21.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant filed an application to have her case re-examined again, enclosing additional documents. 22.  On 31 January 2003 the President upheld his own decision of 8 November 2002. The applicant appealed. 23.  On 20 October 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court decided to suspend the proceedings in order to establish which authority was competent to examine the appeal in light of the liquidation of the Office for Housing and Town Development. The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision. The proceedings were eventually resumed on 23 February 2005. 24.  On 21 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 25 July 2005 she lodged a cassation appeal. 25.  On 27 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court rejected her cassation appeal due to a formal shortcoming, namely failure to pay court fees. 26.  On 21 December 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a complaint by the applicant against the decision of 27 September 2005. The court found that the shortcoming could not be rectified, since the applicant was represented by a professional legal adviser, of whom due diligence was required. It was the final decision given in the case. 27.  On 18 April 2006 the applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court to have her case reinstated. This application was dismissed on 23 August 2006. 28.  On 18 November 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court under section 18 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”), alleging excessive length of proceedings pending before an administrative court. 29.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her complaint. The court found that cases were examined by an administrative court in the order of the date of their introduction. In consequence, all cases lodged before the applicant’s case had been introduced had priority over hers. Hence, the delay in recognition of the applicant’s motion by a court was justified by a high number of cases preceding the applicant’s. For this reason the court did not identify any undue delays in the proceedings resulting in their length being excessive.