4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sosnowiec. 5.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a claim for payment against a limited liability coal‑mining company which for several years had been in possession of the applicant’s plot of land and had not paid the applicant any remuneration for using it without a contract. 6.  Between 2 October 1997 and 11 September 2000 the court listed 8 hearings and heard five expert witnesses. 7.  On 25 September 2000 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and partly granted the claim. 8.  On 29 September 2000 the defendant was declared insolvent and a trustee (syndyk masy upadłości) was appointed. 9.  On 31 October 2000 the trustee lodged an appeal against the judgment of 25 September 2000. 10.  On 22 November 2000 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on a provision of the Code of Civil Proceedings (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego) pursuant to which the proceedings had to be stayed if a party to them had meanwhile been declared insolvent and the dispute concerned an object belonging to the assets of the insolvent party.
On 23 May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings. It relied on a newly amended provision of the Code of Civil Proceedings pursuant to which a court must discontinue the proceedings if they concern assets belonging to the insolvent party and the liquidation of the assets in question has been ordered. 11.  On 7 July 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the undue length of the proceedings under 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”). 12.  On 25 August 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his complaint. Relying on certain judgments of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) according to which the 2004 Act was applicable only to proceedings in which the “state of unreasonable delay” existed on the date on which the 2004 Act entered into force, the court came to the conclusion that a complaint under this Act was not the appropriate remedy for seeking a ruling on the unreasonable length of the proceedings before the court, which had resolved the dispute a long time ago (in this regard the court referred to the fact that the Regional Court had given its judgment on 25 September 2000 and after that date the proceedings had been stayed). The court also found that the applicant had not appealed against the decision staying the proceedings and concluded that the period in which the proceedings had been stayed could not be taken into account. 13.  On 23 July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the trustee of the above-mentioned company, seeking to recover possession of the property which had been used by the coal-mining company. 14.  On 6 June 2005 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed and, on 8 August 2005, the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings. 16.  On 8 December 2006 the Katowice Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request. 17.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision. 18.  On 10 April 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal amended the Regional Court’s decision, granted the applicant’s request and resumed the proceedings. 19.  The proceedings are pending. 20.  On 3 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act. 21.  On 1 March 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected the complaint on account of a procedural mistake; the applicant had failed to specify in his complaint the legal basis of the claim and the relief sought, in particular he did not ask the court to declare that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.