4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Golasowice.
5.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court for the purposes of establishing an easement. In particular the applicant sought a decision allowing her to use a strip of land belonging to her neighbours as a roadway allowing her access to her property. The roadway in question, which has been used by her in the past, runs along a causeway (grobla) between fishponds.
6.  By a decision of 11 July 2000 (file no. I Ns 57/99) the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. The other party appealed against this decision.
7.  On 15 November 2000 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case (file no. III Ca 661/00).
8.  At a hearing on 13 March 2001 the court ordered the preparation of an expert opinion. Two experts declined the invitation to prepare an opinion, and the third expert approached by the court eventually prepared it on 17 October 2001.
9.  The defendants contested both the expert opinion itself and the fee for drafting it. In March 2002 they requested preparation of another expert opinion.
10.  It appears that the next hearing was held on 23 April 2002. The court questioned the expert and appointed another one to assess the value of the plot of land.
11.  On 12 November 2002 the court held a viewing of the property.
12.  At a hearing on 13 January 2003 the court decided to appoint yet another expert to establish whether the easement would have any impact on the fishponds. The opinion was submitted to the court on 11 April 2003. The expert was questioned at a hearing on 3 July 2003. On 27 January 2004 another expert submitted a complementary opinion, at the request of the court.
13.  The next hearing was held on 17 June 2004. The court subsequently dealt with an application lodged by the applicant to exempt her from payment of the fees for the expert opinion.
14.   On 2 June 2005 the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court allowed, in essence, the applicant’s claim (file no. I Ns 57/99). The other party appealed against the decision.
15.  On 26 January 2006 (file no. III Ca 1322/05) the Gliwice Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for the second time.
16.  At a hearing on 26 June 2006 the court requested preparation of an expert geological opinion. The opinion was submitted one year later, on 22 June 2007.
17.  At a hearing on 18 October 2007 the court decided that further defendants should join the proceedings.
18.  A viewing of the land took place on 6 November 2007. Afterwards anther expert opinion on road construction was ordered by the court. It was submitted to the court in January 2008 and the parties duly commented on it.
19.  At a hearing on 23 July 2008 the court questioned the expert and requested the preparation of another expert opinion on the value of the plot of land.
20.  The opinion was submitted to the court on 12 January 2009.
21.  The court held a hearing on 25 November 2009 and decided to hold another viewing of the property. Two subsequent viewings scheduled for December 2009 and February 2010 were cancelled due to the weather conditions.
22.  A hearing was held on 4 March 2010 and on 30 April 2010 the court held a viewing of the land.
23.  Another expert opinion ordered by the court was prepared on 6 August 2010.
24.  The court held hearings in March 2011. On 31 March 2011 it gave a decision granting the applicant the easement in question.
25.  The defendants appealed.
26.  On 22 February 2012 the Gliwice Regional Court finally dismissed the appeals.
27.  On 9 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gliwice Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). She stated that she had lodged her claim in 1999 and that her case had still not been examined. She also claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.
28.  By a decision of 21 December 2004 (file no. III S 36/04) the Gliwice Regional Court rejected the claim on formal grounds, having found that the applicant “had not specified the circumstances on which her complaint had been based.”
29.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act. She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 10,000 in compensation.
30.  By a decision of 5 April 2006 (file no. III S 7/06) the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the claim. It analysed in detail the course of the proceedings after September 2004 and held that they had generally been conducted in a correct and timely manner. As regards the period prior to September 2004, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and held that the 2004 Act applied to delays caused by the court’s inactivity occurring before that date but only if that delay still continued; what had not been the case in the case under the consideration.