4.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant requested the County Building Inspector to assess whether her neighbours had extended their property lawfully. The construction works took place between 1969 and 1974. After the proceedings which aimed to identify the parties to the dispute had finished, the County Building Inspector commenced the proper proceedings on 21 January 2005. 5.  On 8 November 2005 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings finding that all the construction works had been conducted legally. The inspector relied on witnesses’ testimonies since all the documents had gone missing. The Regional Building Inspector upheld the decision on 7 April 2006. 6.  In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wielkoposki Governor about inactivity of the County Building Inspector. On 8 June 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the 8 November 2005 decision had not been examined timeously. 7.  The applicant applied for judicial review of the Regional Building Inspector’s decision. On 6 June 2007 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions stating that the evidence gathered was not sufficient for reaching any conclusions. 8.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Building Inspector pointing to the fact that the decision had not been taken although over a year had elapsed since the court’s judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings before the County Building Inspector. On 2 July 2008 the Regional Inspector advised the County Inspector on the need to deal with the case. 9.  On 13 November 2008 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings. On 23 January the Regional Building Inspector quashed the decision and remitted the case. 10.  Finally on 30 November 2009 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings.