7.  The applicant is an owner of an apartment house located in Warsaw. On 30 July 1992 the applicant's husband lodged with the Warsaw District Court an eviction claim against two of his tenants, T.M. and S.P. The first hearing took place on 18 December 1992. In 1993 hearings were held on the following dates: 15 January, 24 March, 6 and 18 May, 16 and 21 June, 16 July, 12 August, 24 September, 20 October, 17 and 30 November and 21 December. 8.  On 22 December 1992 the applicant's husband died and, accordingly, on 24 March 1993 the court stayed the proceedings invoking Article 174 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and her request was granted promptly afterwards. On 27 May 1993 the applicant revoked the power of attorney of her lawyer A.J. On 16 June 1993 she submitted all the documents requested by the defendants. 10.  At the next hearing, held on 30 November 1993, the court fixed twenty-one days' time-limit for T.M., the defendant, to institute administrative proceedings to have her tenancy rights, apparently originating from an administrative decision given in the 1940s or 1950s,  confirmed. 11.  On 24 March 1994 the Mokotów Housing Administration, in reply to the court's query, informed it that relevant administrative proceedings had been instituted in respect of both defendants. 12.  On an unspecified later date defendant T. M. appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against a decision by which the relevant authorities had discontinued proceedings in which she had requested that an administrative decision be given awarding her administrative tenancy rights. Likewise, on an unspecified date S. P. filed an appeal with the same court against a decision by which his request for confirmation of his tenancy rights had been refused. 13.  On 14 April 1994 the Warsaw District Court stayed the eviction proceedings until the end of the administrative proceedings instituted by the defendants and later on, by a decision of 14 July 1994, refused the applicant's request to resume the proceedings. On 28 July 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. The case-file was forwarded to the Regional Court on 25 August 1994. The appeal was dismissed on 28 December 1994 by the Warsaw Regional Court. 14.  On 31 January 1995 the second-instance administrative authority refused to confirm T.M.'s tenancy rights. 15.  On 24 April 1995 the Warsaw District Court refused the applicant's further request of 18 February 1995 to resume the proceedings as the administrative proceedings concerning the tenancy entitlements of her tenants had not come to an end and remained pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. 16.  On 26 June 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court informed the applicant that the administrative proceedings instituted by the defendants T.M. and S.P. could not be accelerated. 17.  On 23 August 1995 the Warsaw District Court refused the applicant's next request to resume the proceedings, as the administrative proceedings concerning the administrative tenancy entitlements of her tenants remained pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.  On 30 August 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the District Court about the excessive length of proceedings. 18.  On 29 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by T. M. against a decision by which she had been refused, by way of an administrative decision, confirmation of the right to a lease of the apartment in question. 19.  On 29 August 1996 the Warsaw District Court refused to resume the eviction proceedings as the second defendant S. P. had appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the first-instance administrative decision, which had been given in his case on 10 June 1996.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Warsaw Regional Court. 20.  By a letter of 19 November 1996 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant, in reply to her complaint, that the length of the proceedings had been caused by the fact that the administrative proceedings concerning the tenancy entitlements of S.P. were still pending. 21.  On 16 December 1996 the court resumed the proceedings with respect to T.M. and on 22 January 1997 the proceedings were also resumed with respect to S.P., despite the fact that the administrative proceedings in respect of his tenancy rights remained pending. During the hearing held on 25 February 1997 the applicant was requested to specify her claim and to submit all necessary documentary evidence within one month. On 17 March 1997 the applicant's new lawyer specified her claims. On 24 April 1997 the next hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court. 22.  In a letter of 1 July 1997 the President of the Civil Division of the District Court informed the applicant, in reply to her complaint about the length of proceedings, that the proceedings in her case did not appear to be excessively lengthy. 23.  A hearing to be held on 3 July 1997 was adjourned as the summons to the defendant T.M. had not been duly served on him by the post. 24.  In a letter of 7 July 1997 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the proceedings would most probably come to end at the hearing scheduled for 16 October 1997, as the taking of the evidence had almost been completed. Subsequently, a hearing was held on 16 October 1997. 25.  In 1997 the applicant requested the Ombudsman to intervene in her case. The Ombudsman, by a letter of 12 November 1997, informed her that he lacked competence to intervene in pending civil cases as to the merits. However, as the applicant had complained about the excessive length of the proceedings, the Ombudsman had requested the president of the District Court to provide him with relevant information. In reply, the Ombudsman had been informed that the proceedings were about to be concluded, as the taking of the evidence had been completed and only the parties were still to be questioned by the court. 26.  On 18 November 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the second defendant S.P. against the administrative decision discontinuing the administrative proceedings to have his tenancy rights confirmed. The court considered that these proceedings had to be discontinued as under the Tenancy Act of 1994 tenancy contracts established by way of administrative decisions governed by administrative tenancies laws, previously in force, had ceased to exist. The court further observed that under applicable legal provisions any disputes as to the existence and scope of tenancy rights had to be brought before civil courts. 27.  On 23 March 1998 and 7 July 1998 hearings were adjourned as the court had not received a postal confirmation that the summonses had been properly served on the defendants. 28.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. 29.  The next hearing was scheduled for 8 October 1998 and before 5 August 1998 the court received the postal confirmation that the summonses had duly been served on the defendants. Apparently, a hearing was held on that date. 30.  In a letter of 5 August 1998 the President of the District Court stated, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings, that she could not fully share the applicant's view. 31.  On 16 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Minister of Internal Affairs about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 20 October 1998 her complaint was transmitted to the Ministry of Justice. On 22 October 1998 a similar complaint, lodged with the Bureau of the Council of Ministers, was transmitted to the same Ministry. 32.  On 1 December 1998 the Warsaw District Court submitted a complaint to the Regional Bar Association about the unexplained absence of M.B., defendant S.P's lawyer,  at a hearing. 33.  On 12 December 1998 defendant T.M. died. 34.  On 28 December 1998 another hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court. The defendant S.P's lawyer M.B. failed to attend it. The applicant withdrew her eviction claim with respect to T.M. 35.  On 7 January 1999 the defendant S.P. lodged with the Warsaw District Court a claim asserting right of adverse possession of the apartment in question. Apparently on the same day, he lodged with the same court a request to re-open the hearings in the proceedings concerning the applicant's eviction claim, in which the hearings had been closed on  28 December 1998. S.P. argued that the outcome of the newly instituted proceedings would be decisive for the eviction proceedings, which should therefore be stayed again. 36.  On 11 January 1999 the hearings in the eviction case were re-opened. On 7 April 1999 the Warsaw District Court stayed the eviction proceedings until the end of the proceedings instituted by the defendant S. P. claiming to assert the right of adverse possession, and discontinued the proceedings in respect of T. M. as the applicant had withdrawn her eviction claim. On 20 May 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision insofar as it concerned the order to stay the proceedings. 37.  The subsequent hearings in the proceedings concerning S.P.'s claim to have the right of adverse prescription confirmed took place on 8 December 1999, 22 March 2000 and 6 July 2000. 38.  On 17 July 2000 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court dismissed S.P's claim, finding that the apartment where he lived had never constituted a separate tenement. 39.  On 7 September 2000 S.P. appealed against the above decision to the Warsaw Regional Court. On 7 June 2001 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court ultimately rejected S.P.'s appeal against that decision. 40.  The eviction proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.