4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wrocław. 5.  On 12 March 1994 the applicant filed a claim for payment against a contractor before the Wrocław Regional Court, Commercial Law Division. 6.  On 21 February 1995 the case file was transferred to the competent Civil Law Division of the same court. 7.  On 12 October 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the claim and the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. 8.  The judgment was quashed on 27 March 1996 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal and the case remitted for re-examination. 9.  On 24 October 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court again disallowed the applicant's action and his subsequent appeal was dismissed on 14 May 1998 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 December 1998. 10.  On 22 December 1998 the President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal, in reply to the applicant's hierarchical complaint, stated that the length of the proceedings was excessive. 11.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal through his legal-aid lawyer appointed on 21 December 1998. He maintained, inter alia, that he had not been informed by the courts in due time about the possibility of having a legal-aid lawyer appointed to his case. 12.  On 11 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal, having found that there was no need of interpretation of provisions which did not give rise to serious difficulties, no flagrant breach of law and no grounds for nullity of proceedings. 13.  On 1 June 2001 the afore-said decision was served on the applicant. 14.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 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”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000. 15.  The complaint was rejected on 29 November 2004 by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The court further noted that even if the claim had not been dismissed for formal shortcomings it would have been in any event inadmissible as time-barred.