4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Köln, Germany. 5.  On 14 October 1993 the applicant lodged an application with the Warsaw Śródmieście Municipality (Urząd Gminy Warszawa Śródmieście). He asked for the right to the grant of so-called “temporary ownership” of the property (a plot of land and a house). 6.  On 18 August 1995 the Warsaw Śródmieście Municipality referred the application to the Warsaw Municipality (Urząd Gminy Warszawa Centrum). 7.  On 13 November 1995 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) that the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Warszawy) had failed to handle his case within the prescribed time-limit. 8.  On 28 December 1995 the Board of Appeal ordered the Mayor to deal with the applicant’s application within a month. 9.  On 29 March 1996 the Mayor stayed the proceedings. 10.   The Board of Appeal quashed that decision on 17 March 1997. 11.  On 20 August 1998 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal about inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw. 12.  On 17 September 1998 the Mayor issued a decision. He refused to grant the applicant the right he sought. In consequence, the applicant withdrew his complaint of 20 August 1998. 13.  On 20 April 1999 the Board of Appeal quashed the Mayor’s decision and remitted the case. 14.   The Mayor upheld his original decision on 30 November 1999. 15.  On the same day the applicant appealed to the Board of Appeal. 16.  The Board of Appeal quashed the Mayor’s decision on 7 June 2000. 17.  On 8 January 2002 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal that the Mayor had failed to handle his case within the prescribed time-limit. 18.  On 10 June 2002 the Board ordered the Mayor to deal with the case by 30 June 2002. 19.  On 24 September 2003 the Mayor of Warsaw refused to grant the applicant temporary ownership of the property. 20.  The Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case on 29 April 2004. 21.  The proceedings are still pending. 22.  Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure lays down time-limits ranging from 1 month to 2 months for dealing with a case pending before an administrative authority. If those time-limits have not been complied with, the authority must, under Article 36 of the Code, inform the parties of that fact, explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new time-limit. Pursuant to Article 37 § 1, if the case has not been dealt with within the time-limits referred to in Articles 35 and 36, a party to administrative proceedings may lodge a complaint to the higher authority, alleging inactivity. In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well-founded, the higher authority fixes a new term for examining the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay. If need be, the authority may order that measures be applied to prevent such delays in the future. 23.  Until 1 October 1995, under Article 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a party to administrative proceedings could, at any time, lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the fact that an administrative authority had failed to issue a decision. 24.  On 1 October 1995, when the Law of 11 May 1995 on the Supreme Administrative Court (“the 1995 Act”) took effect, Article 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was repealed. 25.  Under section 17 of the 1995 Act the Supreme Administrative Court was competent to examine complaints about inactivity on the part of an authority obliged to issue an administrative decision. 26.  Section 26 of the Act provided:
 “When a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of an administrative authority is well-founded, the Supreme Administrative Court shall oblige that authority to issue a decision, or to perform a specific act, or to confirm, declare, or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law.” 27.  Pursuant to section 30 of the 1995 Act, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court ordering an authority to put an end to its inactivity was legally binding on the authority concerned. If the authority did not comply with the decision, the court could, under section 31, impose a fine on it and could itself give a ruling on the right or obligation in question. 28.  The 1995 Act was repealed and replaced by the Law of 30 August 2002 on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (“the 2002 Act”) which entered into force on 1 January 2004. Section 3 § 2 of the 2002 Act contains provisions analogous to Section 17 of the 1995 Act. A party to administrative proceedings can lodge a complaint about inactivity on the part of an authority obliged to issue an administrative decision with an administrative court. Under section 149, if a complaint is well-founded, an administrative court shall oblige the authority concerned to issue a decision, or to perform a specific act, or to confirm, declare, or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law.