4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Wałbrzych. 5.  The applicant was the owner of a piece of land in Radomsko. On 12 December 1985 he concluded an arrangement with a co-operative enabling him to begin construction work. 6.  On 16 September 1988 the applicant renounced his right to the land and the house which had meanwhile been constructed on it. 7.  In consequence, on 4 November 1988 the board of the co-operative stripped the applicant of his membership. The applicant appealed. On 21 November 1988 the supervisory board upheld the decision. 8.  On an unspecified date a certain S.B. and his family settled in the applicant’s house. 9.  On 31 December 1988 the applicant brought an action against S.B. and the co-operative in the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking repossession of his property and restoration of his membership of the co-operative. 10.  On 30 July 1990 the court allowed the applicant’s claim. On 22 November 1990 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the defendant’s appeal. 11.  On 8 February 1991 the Radomsko District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment. 12.  After the judgment became final, the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings. 13.  On 27 May 1991 the bailiff, despite the fact that S.B. had not vacated the applicant’s house, made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant (protokolarne wprowadzenie w posiadanie). 14.  On 18 September 1991 the Radomsko District Court quashed the bailiff’s decision and ordered that S.B. be evicted. 15.  On 8 May 1992 the District Court bailiff found that it had no competence to deal with the case. The applicant lodged a complaint about the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). On 5 January 1993 the Radomsko Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 16.  As the enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful, on 1 August 1994 the applicant brought an action against S.B. before the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court seeking repossession of the property and compensation. On 1 June 2000 the court gave judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered S.B. to return the property. 17.  On 13 February 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the Regional Court judgment. On 4 April 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment. 18. On 23 July 2001 the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court to institute enforcement proceedings. 19.  On 18 September 2001 the bailiff requested S.B. to vacate the property. 20.  On 28 November 2001 the bailiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 21.  On 6 December 2001 the applicant made a further complaint about the actions of the bailiff. On 17 January 2002 the Radomsko District Court dismissed the complaint. 22.  On 4 February 2002 the Radomsko District Court again made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision. 23.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant lodged his third complaint against the actions taken by the bailiff. On 25 November 2002 the District Court ordered the bailiff to secure alternative accommodation for S.B. and his family. 24.  On 25 November 2002 the Radomsko District Court ordered the bailiff to guarantee alternative accommodation to S.B. and his family. 25.  On 10 March 2003 the bailiff requested the municipal authorities to provide S.B. with alternative accommodation. 26.  On 14 March 2003 the municipal authorities informed the bailiff that no social housing was available. 27.  On 9 April 2003 the bailiff informed the applicant of the unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 28.  On 26 May 2003 the applicant brought an action against S.B. and his family for repossession of his property. On 23 January 2004 the Radomsko District Court, relying on the principle of res iudicata, refused to examine the claim. The court further stated that the lack of alternative accommodation should not be an obstacle to eviction. 29.  On 11 February 2004 the bailiff stayed the execution due to the death of S.B. In the meantime, on 13 January 2004, the Radomsko District Court ordered that S.B.’s wife and any other persons in the household be evicted. 30.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant submitted to the District Court a complaint about the actions taken by the bailiff (stay of the proceedings). On 17 May 2004 the court rejected the complaint. The applicant appealed. On 13 July 2004 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed the appeal. 31.  On 28 May 2004 the applicant submitted a complaint about the bailiff to the National Bailiffs Committee (Krajowa Rada Komornicza). After one year of investigation, on 28 December 2006 the Radomsko district prosecutor charged the bailiff with fraud and abuse of authority. 32.  On 3 September 2004 the bailiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recover possession. 33.  On 15 December 2004 the bailiff discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed. 34.  On 12 February 2005 the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be resumed. On 9 March 2005 the bailiff resumed the proceedings and ordered S.B.’s family to vacate the property. 35.  On 2 September 2005 S.B.’s widow vacated the applicant’s property. According to the applicant, the building was dilapidated and the garden neglected. 36.  In the meantime, on 22 March 2004, the applicant brought an action for damages against the bailiff, the State Treasury and S.B.’s widow. 37.  On 26 March 2008 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court delivered its judgment. The court ordered S.B.’s widow to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 60,450.84 and dismissed the action against the bailiff and the State Treasury. The applicant appealed. 38.  On 15 December 2008 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the part of the judgment in which the first instance court had ordered S.B.’s widow to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 60,450.84 and quashed the remainder. The case was remitted for reconsideration. 39.  On 22 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court alleging a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the provisions of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. Under section 3 of the 2004 Act a complaint can be lodged in the course of enforcement proceedings. 40.  However, on 8 November 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court examined only the course of the proceedings after 11 February 2004, when the proceedings were stayed by the bailiff. It held that the stay of the enforcement proceedings owing to S.B.’s death had been in compliance with the relevant procedural rules and considered that the proceedings had not been unreasonably lengthy. The applicant appealed. 41.  On 24 November 2004 the appeal was rejected by the Regional Court as being inadmissible in law.