4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Lipiany. 5.  On 15 November 1996 the applicant brought before the Poznań – Stare Miasto District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action for the division of the estate of his late father. The estate comprised, inter alia, real property located in Poznań. 6.  Shortly afterwards, the applicant asked the same court for a decision declaring that he had acquired his late father's estate. On an unspecified subsequent date both actions were consolidated into one. 7.  On 16 July 1998 the case was referred to the Stargard Szczeciński District Court as most of the parties to the proceedings lived in that region. 8.  On 21 September 1999 the court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) declaring that the applicant had acquired 3/16 of the estate. 9.  On 11 May 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) referred the case in its part concerning the division of an inheritance to the Poznań District Court. It further decided that the inheritance proceedings should be joined with another set of proceedings concerning the dissolution of co‑ownership of the real property in question. 10.  On 24 September and 30 November 2004, 4 February, 25 March, 17 May, 2 August, 18 October and 9 December 2005 the Poznań District Court held hearings. 11.  In August 2005 the Poznań District Court ordered that an expert report estimating the market value of the real property be prepared within four months. 12.  In January 2006 the expert informed the court that he would not be able to submit the report within the above time-limit because of a heavy workload. 13.  In August 2006 the expert notified the court that he was denied access to 9 out of the 15 apartments which made up the property. 14.  On 1 December 2006 the expert submitted a report estimating the value of eight apartments only. In the report, the expert noted that he could not inspect the rest of the apartments as their current tenants had not allowed him to do so. 15.  Between 1 December 2006 and 7 August 2008 the Poznań District Court gave several interlocutory decisions concerning the estimate of the value of the real property. 16.  A hearing scheduled for 18 May 2010 was adjourned due to the illness of the judge. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 September 2010. 17.  The proceedings are still pending before the Poznań District Court. 18.  On 7 August 2008 the applicant lodged with the Poznań Regional Court 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”). 19.  On 24 October 2008 the Poznań Regional Court acknowledged that there had been some periods of inactivity for which the Poznań District Court had been responsible, in particular that an expert report had not been prepared within the time-limit fixed and that little effort had been made by the court to discipline the expert. In its analysis the court did not examine the course of the proceedings prior to the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. 20.  The Poznań Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any compensation considering that he had failed to duly justify the amount sought.