8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gliwice, Poland. 9.  In December 1989 riots broke out in the Nowogard prison, where the applicant was serving his sentence in a medical ward due to his mental state. The applicant contends that he was beaten up by the prison officers who had been called to suppress the riots. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Brzeg prison where he was allegedly assaulted by a prison officer. 10.  On 14 March 1991 the applicant filed an application with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) for compensation against the State Treasury. He claimed that he had sustained injuries as a result of the assaults by the prison officers in the Nowogard prison. 11.  On 20 March 1991 the court exempted the applicant from payment of court fees. On 29 March 1991 he was granted legal aid. 12.  On 27 August 1991 the court held a hearing. 13.  At the end of 1991, at the applicant’s lawyer request, the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the prison officers involved in the events in the Nowogard prison. 14.  On an unknown date in 1992 the criminal proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Goleniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). 15.  On 14 October 1992 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Szczecin Regional Court to resume the proceedings. 16.  On 10 February 1994 the trial court set a time-limit for the applicant to submit addresses of six witnesses to be heard by the court. On 1 March 1994 the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to assist in establishing addresses of the witnesses. 17.  On 24 October 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court resumed the impugned proceedings. 18.  On 4 January 1995 the applicant complained to the trial court about the excessive length of the proceedings. 19.  On 10 January 1995 the court held a hearing. Two witnesses did not appear. The court ordered an expert report by a psychiatrist. 20.  On 29 April 1995 the applicant again complained to the court about the length of the proceedings. 21.  On 16 May 1995 the court requested prisons in Gdańsk, Siedlce and Sztum to submit information on the whereabouts of three witnesses indicated by the applicant’s lawyer. It also requested the Warsaw District Court, Stargard Szczecinski District Court and Gliwice District Court to take evidence from certain witnesses. 22.  On 2 June 1995 the Stargard Szczecinski District Court informed the trial court that its request had not been executed because the whereabouts of the witnesses were unknown. 23.  In the meantime, the applicant had changed his domicile by moving to Gliwice. On 13 May 1996 the trial court requested that the Gliwice District Court obtain the expert report due to the applicant’s new domicile. 24.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant was heard before the District Court. 25.  On 23 October 1995 the trial court requested the Wyszków Regional Court for legal assistance in taking evidence from a certain witness. On 17 November 1995 the Wyszków Regional Court informed the trial court that the requested witness had failed to appear before the court. 26.  On 1 February 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court heard a witness. 27.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant’s lawyer withdrew the evidence motion due to difficulties in establishing the whereabouts of the witnesses. 28.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant complained to the trial court about the excessive length of the proceedings. 29.  On 9 April 1996 the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Silesian Medical Academy informed the court that it was not able to prepare a medical opinion on the applicant’s state of health. 30.  On 13 May 1996 the trial court requested the Gliwice Regional Court for legal assistance in obtaining a psychiatric opinion. 31.  On 21 November 1996 the expert on psychiatry informed the court that he would not prepare the opinion since the applicant had failed to appear despite being summoned. 32.  On 28 March 1997 the applicant informed the court that he had not been properly summoned for the psychiatric examination. On 28 May 1997 the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that the applicant had not obtained any summons for the psychiatric examination. 33.  On 3 June 1997 the court held a hearing. 34.  On 17 September 1997 the presiding judge in the proceedings was changed. 35.  On 19 September and 12 November 1997 respectively the applicant complained to the court about the excessive length of the proceedings. 36.  On 18 February 1998 the court held a hearing and ordered an expert report by a psychiatrist. 37.  On 28 April 1998 the applicant reported to the Knurów Psychiatric Clinic for examination but the doctor who had scheduled the appointment was absent. Later, the examination was carried out. On 8 May 1998 the opinion was submitted to the court. 38.  A hearing listed for 3 June 1998 was adjourned. On 10 June 1998 the court held a hearing. 39.  On 7 July 1998 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 40.  On 6 January 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 13 July 1999 it upheld the first-instance judgment. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).