5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warsaw. 6.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sad Okręgowy) for dissolution of a partnership. 7.  On 6 June 1995 the proceedings were stayed. 8.  On 26 September 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings. 9.  The applicant appealed against this decision. 10.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the decision on the discontinuance of the proceedings. 11.  On 23 July 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court found that it was not competent to deal with the matter and referred the case to the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 12.  Between 26 February 1998 and 2 September 2002 the court scheduled eight hearings, two of which were adjourned. 13.  On 2 September 2002 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. 14.  Between 25 November 2002 and June 2003 the expert witness prepared his report. 15.  On 8 April 2004 the proceedings were stayed. The applicant appealed. 16.  On 16 August 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal. 17.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw District Court. 18.  On 14 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint 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”). 19.  On 29 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed his complaint on the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the court’s conduct could be discerned. The court acknowledged that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy for various reasons such as the failure of witnesses and lawyers to appear on numerous occasions and the unreasonably long period taken up by the preparation of a report by the expert witness. The court also found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court (between 18 November 1998 and 24 September 1999 and between 9 December 1999 and 29 October 2001). However, the court stressed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court in the period following the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.