4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Katowice. 5.  On 5 January 1993 the applicant filed with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a claim for payment of maintenance contributions made between 1987 and 1993 for property located in Katowice, at Stawowa Street. 6.  On 23 August 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant was ordered to specify her claim. 7.  On 23 March 1994 the applicant was urged to specify her claim. On 9 April 1994 the applicant complied with the court’s order. 8.  On 8 June, 21 September and 30 November 1994 the court held hearings, one of which was adjourned on the applicant’s motion. 9.  On 7 June 1995 the proceedings were stayed at the parties’ request. 10.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant lodged an application for resumption of the proceedings. They were resumed after thirteen months – on 16 December 1998. 11.  On 25 August 2000 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of civil proceedings for the annulment of a donation contract. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 10 January 2002, following the dismissal of her application for exemption from court fees. 12.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant lodged an application to resume the proceedings, to no avail. 13.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant, following the defendant’s death, withdrew her claim. 14.  On 15 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court resumed the proceedings. 15.  On 31 August 2006 the proceedings were discontinued. 16.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint 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”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. 17.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)). 18.  On 24 August 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. It observed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004, that is, the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. As the main proceedings had been stayed in 2000, the case – in the opinion of that court – was not pending within the meaning of the 2004 Act. 19.  On 9 December 1996 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a claim for payment of maintenance contributions made between 1993 and 1995 for property located in Katowice, at Stawowa Street, together with a request for exemption from court fees. 20.  On 21 April 1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s request. She appealed against this decision. 21.  On 11 August 1997 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. 22.  On 10 January 1999 the defendant lodged a counterclaim against the applicant, together with a request for exemption from court fees. 23.  On 12 October 2000 the court, after having examined several requests for exemption from court fees, returned the counterclaim. 24.  On 28 March, 9 May, 4 June and 30 July 2001 the court held hearings. Five witnesses gave evidence and the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. 25.  On 13 February 2003 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of the proceedings for the annulment of a donation contract. The defendant’s appeal was rejected on 24 November 2003. 26.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant lodged an application to resume the proceedings, to no avail. 27.  On 12 June 2006 the court resumed the proceedings. 28.  On 14 June 2006 the proceedings were discontinued due to the defendant’s death. 29.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approx. EUR 2,500). 30.  On 12 August 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. It observed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004, that is, the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. As the main proceedings had been stayed in 2003, the case – in the opinion of that court – was not pending within the meaning of the 2004 Act. 31.  At the hearing held on 29 May 2003 in the civil proceedings for compensation, the applicant extended her claim. It was registered on 30 May 2003 by the Katowice Regional Court as a new case. 32.  On the same date the Katowice Regional Court requested that the applicant’s lawyer comply with the procedural requirements in respect of lodging such a new claim and pay a court fee. An appeal against the decision was allowed by the Katowice Regional Court. 33.  Between 1 August 2003 (when the Katowice Regional Court again requested the applicant’s lawyer to fulfil the procedural requirements for the statement of claim) and 2 September 2005 (when the Katowice Court of Appeal examined her complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act), the proceedings focused exclusively on an examination of procedural issues, raised by the applicant and/or her lawyer (namely, whether the exemption from court fees and the authorisation of a legal-aid lawyer granted to the applicant in another set of civil proceedings was ex lege extended for the proceedings). 34.  In particular, on 14 September 2004 the applicant’s lawyer lodged with the Katowice Regional Court an appeal against a decision of that court given on 30 August 2004. The case file was transferred to the Katowice Court of Appeal by virtue of a decision of 1 October 2004. It was sent back to the Katowice Regional Court on 9 November 2004 in order to comply with procedural requirements. That instruction was completed by the Katowice Regional Court on 25 January 2005. 35.  On 30 March 2005 the case file was again sent back to the Katowice Court of Appeal, which on 10 May 2005 quashed the decision of 30 August 2004. 36.  After the return of the case file on 7 June 2005 to the Katowice Regional Court, no action was taken until 28 July 2005 – the date on which the applicant lodged the length complaint. 37.  On 13 March 2006, due to the defendant’s death, the court stayed the proceedings. 38.  On 27 July 2006 the court discontinued the proceedings. 39.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 (approx. EUR 2,500). 40.  On 2 September 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal partly allowed her length complaint and confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been protracted between 9 November 2004 and 25 January 2005 and between 7 June 2005 and 28 July 2005. However, the court did not award the applicant any just satisfaction under the 2004 Act. It explained that the legal conditions for granting just satisfaction had not been satisfied, as the case had not reached the lis pendens stage. 41.  On an unknown date in 1992, the applicant’s mother lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a claim for the annulment of a 1990 donation contract in respect of property located in Katowice, at Stawowa Street. It seems that the mother, who had been suffering from atherosclerosis, was represented by the applicant. 42.  During the proceedings several psychiatric opinions concerning the mother’s state of health were obtained. 43.  On 13 July 1995 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and declared the donation contract null and void. 44.  The first-instance judgment was quashed by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 24 October 1996. 45.  On 20 February 2003 the Katowice Regional Court again annulled the donation contract. 46.  On an unspecified date the judgment was challenged by the other party to the proceedings. 47.  On 2 March 2003 the applicant’s mother died. The proceedings have been stayed since that time pending termination of the inheritance proceedings. 48.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)). 49.  On 1 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected her complaint on the procedural ground that the applicant was not a party to the proceedings for the annulment of the donation contract. The court relied on section 3 of the 2004 Act, according to which only a party to the proceedings is entitled to lodge a complaint under the 2004 Act. Given that relevant inheritance proceedings were still pending, the applicant could not be recognised as a formal heir of her mother and could not act as a successor party in the proceedings for the annulment of the contract. 50.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a claim for compensation. 51.  On 15 September 1999 a defendant lodged a counterclaim against the applicant. 52.  The first hearing was scheduled for 16 September 1999. 53.  In the course of hearings held on 9 November 2001 and 11 January 2002 the Katowice Regional Court heard evidence from eight witnesses. 54.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant extended her claim. It was registered on 30 May 2003 by the Katowice Regional Court as a new case (see paragraph 31 above). 55.  On 30 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court ordered compensation in the amount of PLN 2,000 (approximately EUR 500) to be paid to the applicant. 56.  On 17 February 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal increased the amount of compensation to PLN 7,000 (approximately EUR 1,750). 57.  A cassation appeal was not lodged. 58.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)). 59.  On 1 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected her complaint on a procedural ground, as it had been lodged after the termination of the proceedings. The court relied on section 5 of the 2004 Act, according to which a length complaint could only be lodged during the proceedings.