4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sosnowiec. 5.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant filed a claim for payment against J.M. and K.M. with the Katowice Regional Court. 6.  On 23 February 1999 the Katowice Regional Court ruled that J.M. and K.M. (“the debtors”) were to pay the applicant the sum of 25,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), with statutory interest, and issued a writ of execution in respect of this judgment. 7.  On 21 September 1999, following the applicant’s request of 16 September, the bailiff of the Sosnowiec District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) instituted enforcement proceedings against the debtors. 8.  On 28 February 2000, because the debt was proving impossible to recover, the bailiff initiated proceedings for possession of the debtors’ apartment. On 5 April 2000 the bailiff had the apartment valued. 9.  On 28 April 2000 the debtors complained about the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). On 29 June 2000 the Sosnowiec District Court dismissed the debtors’ complaint for procedural reasons. 10.  On 11 May 2001 the bailiff ordered execution of the payment by attaching the debtors’ remuneration for work and other assets. By 22 April 2002 the applicant had received the sum of PLN 9,218.16. Further, the bailiff ordered execution of the payment by auctioning the debtors’ car, various domestic appliances and electronic equipment, but without success. 11.  The debtors filed numerous complaints against the actions taken by the bailiff. On 7 March 2000 they filed a request with the Sosnowiec District Court to have the enforcement proceedings discontinued. On 5 October 2000 the debtors’ complaint was dismissed. 12.  On 15 November 2001 the Katowice Regional Court determined that the remaining sum to be paid by the debtors amounted to PLN 16,288.80. 13.  The first auction of the debtors’ apartment was scheduled for 20 September 2002. It failed owing to the lack of any interested buyers. 14.  On 30 October 2002 the bailiff organised a second auction of the apartment. On 4 November 2002 the Sosnowiec District Court confirmed that the applicant had acquired the debtors’ apartment. The debtors appealed against the court’s decision. 15.  On 26 August 2003 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the debtors’ appeal. 16.  On 16 April 2004, at the applicant’s request, the Sosnowiec District Court offset the value of the apartment against the applicant’s claim. On 12 May 2004 the debtors appealed against the District Court’s decision. On 2 November 2004 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court. The appellate court observed that the first-instance court had overlooked the debtors’ liabilities to the Social Security Board. It noted that liabilities arising from an employer’s failure to make social-insurance contributions took precedence over other liabilities. 17.  On 5 May 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court ordered the bailiff to take all relevant enforcement measures to attach the debtors’ assets. On 1 August 2006 the President of the Katowice Regional Court informed the President of the Sosnowiec District Court that the enforcement proceedings at issue, as well as related court proceedings, were henceforth subject to his supervision. 18.  On 8 June 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to offset the value of the apartment against his claim. It found that the sum obtained at the auction was not enough to cover both the liabilities towards the applicant and the Social Security Board, since the liabilities of the latter exceeded the sum obtained. On 26 June 2006 the applicant appealed. On 20 June 2007 the Regional Court rejected the appeal, finding that a decision concerning the recognition of a purchase price against the repayment of a debt could not be the subject of an appeal. 19.  Subsequently, it appears that the bailiff ordered the execution of the sum due from the debtors’ other assets. 20.  On 13 August 2007 the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be discontinued on the condition that the debtors pay him the agreed sum. After the sum had been transferred to the applicant’s account the bailiff discontinued the proceedings on 7 September 2007. 21.  On 25 August 2005 the applicant complained to the Katowice Regional Court of a breach of his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under the Law of 17 June 2004 (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 during enforcement proceedings. In particular, the applicant complained that the court proceedings concerning the enforced sale of the debtors’ apartment had been unduly lengthy. 22.  On 30 December 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act took legal effect from the date of entry into force. The court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole. However, it found that during the relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004. 23.  In respect of the applicant’s subsequent complaint filed under the 2004 Act, this time against the enforcement proceedings brought by the bailiff, the Katowice Regional Court acknowledged that the impugned proceedings were unduly lengthy and awarded the applicant the sum of PLN 5,000 in damages in a decision of 3 October 2006. The Regional Court found that some of the bailiff’s actions had been considerably delayed. Moreover, the bailiff had failed to examine numerous requests by the applicant to have formal shortcomings rectified. 24.  On 17 January 2007 the applicant lodged a second complaint with the Katowice Regional Court under the 2004 Act. The complaint was rejected by the court for procedural reasons, as he had failed to mention the present case in his application.