5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szczecin, Poland. 6.  In 1987 the applicant married I.P. In 1984 and 1988 respectively, K., his daughter, and R., his son, were born. In spring 1992 I.P. filed for a divorce. 7.  On 11 May 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court issued an interim contact order. According to its terms, the applicant was allowed to visit the children on Wednesdays and Fridays for 2 hours and to spend 2 weeks with them in summer. 8.  On 16 September 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court held that the applicant's ex‑wife was responsible for the breakdown of their marriage. It also awarded parental rights to both parents. It also limited the applicant in the exercise of his rights: it ordered that K. and R.'s permanent residence be with their mother. The applicant was allowed to co‑decide about the children's education, health and place of residence. The court specified access arrangements as determined in the interim contact order of 11 May 1993. 9.  On an unknown date in October 1994 the applicant filed a motion with the Szczecin District Court for enforcement of the access arrangements. On 11 October 1994 the District Court dismissed his application. On 9 January 1996 the applicant again applied to the District Court complaining that his ex‑wife was not respecting the access arrangements. 10.  On 17 May 1996, upon the applicant's motion, the Bailiff of the Szczecin District Court refused to enforce the judgment of 16 September 1994. He stated that pursuant to Articles 1050 and 1051 of the Civil Procedure Code custody arrangements should be enforced by a court. 11.  On 18 June 1996 the Szczecin District Court, referring to the children's best interest, dismissed the applicant's application for enforcement of his visiting rights. Upon the applicant's appeal, on 2 October 1996, the Szczecin Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to have access to his children and that the District Court should have examined the case from the perspective of enforcing his rights. In case the mother obstructed the access arrangements, the District Court should consider imposing a fine on her pursuant to Article 1050 § 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 12.  On 24 June 1997 the applicant asked the District Court to expedite the proceedings. 13.  On 11 September 1997 the Szczecin District Court ordered the mother to make R. available for contact. The court attached a penal order: in case of failure to comply with that decision I.P. was to pay a fine of PLN 300 [approx. EUR 75]. The court further discontinued the enforcement proceedings as regards contacts with K. 14.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant informed the District Court that I.P. was still failing to comply with the decision of 11 September 1997. He further asked the court to impose a fine on her. The District Court examined his motion on 19 February, 24 March and 10 June 1998. On the latter date the District Court dismissed the motion. 15.  On 23 June 1998 the Szczecin District Court informed the applicant that he could see R. on 29 June 1998 in the Szczecin Consultation Centre (Ośrodek diagnostyczno‑konsultacyjny). On 29 June 1998 the visit took place. 16.  On 12 September 1998 the court informed the applicant that he could meet his son in the Psychiatric Consultation Centre (Poradnia i pogotowie umacniania zdrowia psychicznego). It is not clear whether the visit took place. 17.  On an unknown date in 1998, of its own motion, the Szczecin District Court instituted proceedings against the applicant's ex‑wife for limitation of custodial rights and failure to establish access arrangements for the applicant. 18.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant informed the court that I.P. had again failed to make R. available for the meeting. On 15 February 1999 the Szczecin District Court ordered I.P. to comply with the divorce judgment as regards the applicant's access rights on pain of a fine in the amount of 500 PLN. On 15 September 1999 and 19 June 2000 the court held hearings. On the latter date the District Court stayed the proceedings. 19.  On 30 June 2000 the Szczecin District Court gave a decision and for the second time determined the applicant's visiting rights. The applicant could visit R. every second Saturday and Sunday. He could also spend with him the second day of the Christmas holidays, Easter Monday and two weeks of holidays either in July or August. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. 20.  On 25 July 2000 the Szczecin District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings against I.P. in view of the new access arrangements. The court considered that the applicant should have filed a new motion for enforcement of his visiting rights. 21.  On 12 December 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the District Court complaining that the mother had failed to comply with the terms of the new contact order. 22.  On 28 May 2001 the Szczecin District Court ordered the mother to make the child available for contact on pain of a fine in the amount of PLN 500 [approx. EUR 125]. 23.  On 9 June 2001 the applicant attempted to visit R. However, I.P. was absent and R was not available for the meeting. Subsequently, on 11 June 2001 the applicant informed the court that his ex‑wife had again failed to comply with the decision of 30 June 2000. 24.  Meanwhile, the applicant applied to be granted full custody rights in respect of R. On 4 October 2000 the Szczecin District Court dismissed his application. This decision was upheld by the Szczecin Regional Court on 11 June 2001. 25.  On 24 September 2001 the Szczecin District Court imposed a fine on I.P, for failure to comply with the court's orders concerning the applicant's visiting rights. I.P. appealed against this decision. She claimed that she had never prohibited R. from seeing his father. She had even tried to explain to R. that it was important to have contacts with his father. On 9 June 2001 R. had refused to meet the applicant and she had not wanted to interfere with his decision. In her opinion, the applicant had been “torturing” R. with his constant request for visits. 26.  On an unknown later date the applicant's ex‑wife filed an application to limit the applicant's contacts with R. She also appealed against the decision of 24 September 2001. 27.  On 14 March 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a decision and dismissed I.P.'s appeal against the decision to impose a fine on her. The court held that since the access arrangements had been specified for the second time, I.P. had been refusing to make the child available for contacts. In addition, I.P. was the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and she was required to comply with the access arrangements. Lastly, the applicant's requests, based on a lawful court order, could not have been considered as “torturing the child”. 28.  On 17 June 2002 the Szczecin District Court discontinued the proceedings in the applicant's case, since the applicant and his ex‑wife had reached an agreement concerning access to the child. 29.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time alleging inactivity on the part of the Szczecin District Court. On 27 April 2005 he submitted that his complaint related to all sets of proceedings concerning enforcement of the contact orders, since 1994. 30.  On 10 May 2005 the Regional Court asked the applicant to specify which set of enforcement proceedings he had referred to in his complaint. On 20 May 2005 the applicant submitted that all sets of proceedings concerned the enforcement of contact orders. He further claimed that, while the case numbers and the presiding judges had changed, the enforcement proceedings concerned the same contact order in respect of his child. 31.  On 23 May 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court rejected the applicant's complaint. The court found that the applicant had failed to indicate to which set of proceedings he had referred. It added that the applicant's complaint could be considered as concerning the first set of enforcement proceedings which had been terminated on 11 October 1994. Therefore, his complaint had to be rejected as lodged outside the time‑limit.