4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1945 and 1944 respectively and live in Tarnowskie Góry, Poland. 5.  In 1953 a building and a plot of land owned by the applicants were expropriated. The compensation granted pursuant to the expropriation decision was not paid. 6.  In 1992 the second applicant, Mr F. Kukówka, requested the Katowice Governor (wojewoda) to declare the expropriation decision null and void. 7.  On 30 March 1993 the Governor refused. The second applicant appealed against this decision. 8.  On 20 December 1993 the Minister of Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) dismissed the appeal. The second applicant appealed. 9.  On 15 June 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed both decisions taken in 1993. 10.  On 31 January 1995 the Minister of Construction, having re-examined the second applicant's request, declared the 1953 expropriation decision null and void. The applicants' ownership right to the property was entered in the relevant land and mortgage register. 11.  On 7 April 1995 the second applicant requested the Minister of Construction for compensation for the unlawful use of the property by a State-owned enterprise. 12.  On 15 January 1996 the Minister of Construction refused the request. The applicant filed a civil action with the Katowice Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki). 13.  On 22 February 1996 the Katowice Regional Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Warsaw Regional Court. 14.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 5 September 1996, 17 October 1996, 6 May 1997 and 21 August 1997. 15.  On 8 May 1998 the first applicant joined the proceedings as an intervenor (interwenient uboczny). 16.  On 25 May 1998 the lawyer representing the State Treasury contested an expert's opinion filed in the case. 17.  On 22 October 1998 a hearing was held. 18.  On 26 October 1998 the defendant (the State Treasury) requested the court to order an opinion from another expert. 19.  On 23 April 1999 the court ordered an expert witness to give an opinion. The opinion was submitted on 3 August 1999. The parties submitted their comments on 25 October 1999, 3 November 1999 and 6 December 1999. 20.  The hearing scheduled for 27 January 2000 was adjourned because the defendant's lawyer had failed to attend. The expert witness had informed the court that he would not be able to attend hearings scheduled before 7 February 2000 because he would abroad. 21.  The expert witness was heard on 19 March 2000. 22.  On 27 March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court delivered a judgment. It awarded the second applicant 103,818 zlotys (PLN) in compensation for damage actually suffered (damnum emergens), together with statutory interest payable from 11 May 1998. The court dismissed the claim for the alleged loss of profits (lucrum cessans). 23.  On 31 March 2000 the first applicant filed a motion to supplement the judgment. On 22 September 2000 the defendant submitted its comments. On 10 October 2000 the court dismissed the first applicant's motion. She appealed. Her appeal was dismissed on 14 May 2001. 24.  On 24 July 2000 the first applicant filed a complaint with the President of the Regional Court about the alleged excessive length of the proceedings. 25.   The written reasons of the judgment of 27 March 2000 were served on the applicants on 16 October 2000. The first applicant and the defendant appealed against the judgment. 26.  The first applicant's appeal against the judgment was rejected on 14 May 2001. Her appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 June 2001. 27.  On 10 July 2001 the applicants summoned the defendant to pay the compensation awarded by the Regional Court. In reply, they were informed that the judgment of 27 March 2000 was not enforceable since the appellate proceedings were pending. 28.  The applicants requested the Regional Court to provide them with an interpretation of its judgment. On 25 July 2001 the court refused that request. 29.  Subsequently, they requested that court to add an enforcement clause to the judgment. On 21 September 2001 the court refused since the proceedings were pending before the Court of Appeal. 30.  On 29 August 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, but held that interest was payable from 27 March 2000. 31.  On 17 February 2003 the Court of Appeal attached an enforcement clause to the judgment. 32.  The compensation was eventually paid by the State on 5 March 2003. 33.  On 18 March 2003 the applicants lodged a request for the re-opening of the proceedings. The request was eventually refused on 26 April 2006. 34.  On 26 October 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act (see paragraph 37 below) with the Court of Appeal about the excessive length of the proceedings. She invoked section 18 of the 2004 Act and requested the court to “deliver a decision concerning the unreasonable length of proceedings which had lasted eight years” (since the proceedings for re-opening were still pending). She further presented the substance of the impugned proceedings and submitted that she had lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the European Court of Human Rights and that the Court had communicated her complaint to the respondent Government. 35.  On 5 November 2004 the Court of Appeal asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whether the first applicant had lodged an application with the Court and whether an admissibility decision had been issued.
In reply to its question of 5 November 2004, on 16 November 2004 the Registry informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the first applicant's application was pending before the Court and had not been declared admissible. 36.  On 1 December 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint without examining its merits. The court first noted that it had been informed by the Government that the first applicant's case in Strasbourg had been declared inadmissible. Further, the court noted that the first applicant's complaint had not contained a request to find that there had been an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings. Lastly, the court considered that the applicant had failed to indicate circumstances that would justify her request, as required by section 6 of the 2004 Act. The court found that the mere fact, relied on by the applicant, that the proceedings had lasted over eight years, could not suffice to find that the proceedings had lasted longer that was necessary. Therefore, according to section 9 of the Act, the complaint had to be rejected without requiring the plaintiff to complete it. 37.  The second applicant also lodged a length complaint with regard to the same proceedings. His complaint was examined by the same panel of judges and on the same day as the first applicant's complaint. The second applicant's complaint was partly rejected and partly dismissed. The Court of Appeal considered that the second applicant's complaint concerned two separate sets of proceedings, the original proceedings and those in which the applicant had sought to have the original proceedings re-opened. In so far as the proceedings which had ended on 29 August 2002 were concerned, the Court of Appeal found that the complaint had not been lodged while the impugned proceedings were still pending. Therefore, the second applicant had not complied with the provisions of section 5 of the 2004 Act and his complaint had therefore to be rejected. The court did not refer to the applicant's reliance on section 18 of the 2004 Act in his complaint.