5.  On 25 November 1993 the applicant’s brother filed with the Plovdiv District Court a petition requesting the partition of three golden coins inherited by him and the applicant from their late mother. The court opened a case file on 5 April 1994 and apparently served a copy of the petition on the applicant around that date. 6.  The first hearing was held on 15 June 1994. The court heard the applicant and the petitioner, admitted certain documents in evidence and gave the petitioner leave to call two witnesses. 7.  A hearing listed for 24 October 1994 was adjourned because the petitioner’s witnesses did not show up, one of them being ill and the other busy. 8.  The next hearing took place on 19 January 1995. The court heard the applicant, the petitioner and two witnesses called by the petitioner. The applicant asked for leave to call two witnesses. The court granted such leave, but fined the applicant for protracting the proceedings. 9.  The last hearing was held on 28 March 1995. The court heard two witnesses called by the applicant and admitted a document in evidence. It also heard the parties’ closing arguments. 10.  In a judgment of 11 July 1995 the Plovdiv District Court allowed the partition of the three coins in two equal shares. It ordered an expert report on the value of the coins. The court held that the applicant’s mother had owned three gold coins, which she had left in his possession, as evidenced by the testimony of two witnesses. 11.  On 20 October 1995 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 12.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 9 January 1996. It did not gather new evidence, heard the parties’ closing arguments and reserved judgment. 13.  In a judgment of 24 January 1996 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment and dismissed the request for the partition of the coins. It held that the lower court’s findings of fact had been based on insufficient evidence. 14.  On 23 February 1996 the applicant’s brother lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. 15.  The Supreme Court held a hearing on 12 September 1996. It noted that both the applicant and the petitioner had been duly summoned, but had failed to show up, and reserved judgment. 16.  In a judgment of 24 September 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Plovdiv Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for retrial. It held that by quashing the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment for evidentiary insufficiency and then dismissing the request for the partition of the coins outright, without gathering further evidence, the Plovdiv Regional Court had made a serious breach of Article 208 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 41 below). 17.  Following the remittal, the Plovdiv Regional Court listed a hearing for 22 January 1997. The hearing had to be adjourned, because the applicant had fallen ill and could not attend. 18.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 16 April 1997. It heard the parties’ closing arguments and reserved judgment. 19.  In a judgment of 10 June 1997 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment of 11 July 1995 and decided to proceed to examine the case on the merits, as provided by Article 208 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 41 below). 20.  Two hearings listed for 8 October 1997 and 21 January 1998 had to be adjourned because the applicant had not been properly summoned. 21.  A hearing was held on 15 May 1998. The court noted that two of the members of the panel examining the case had participated in the proceedings before the remittal by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it decided that they should be replaced and adjourned the case. 22.  The next hearing took place on 6 July 1998. The petitioner failed to show up. The court heard the applicant’s closing statement and reserved judgment. 23.  By an order of 10 July 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court reopened the oral proceedings on the motion of the petitioner, finding that, having been ill, the latter had had a good cause to be absent at the hearing on 6 July 1998. The court also gave the parties leave to call additional witnesses. 24.  The court held a hearing on 23 October 1998. It questioned one witness called by the petitioner and one witness called by the applicant, and heard the parties’ closing arguments. 25.  In a judgment of 1 December 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the request for the partition of the coins. 26.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant’s brother lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Cassation. (In 1997 the former Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court). 27.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 15 November 1999. It noted that despite being duly summoned, the applicant and the petitioner had failed to appear, and reserved judgment. 28.  In a judgment of 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation reversed the Plovdiv Regional Court’s judgment and allowed the partition of the coins. 29.  The proceedings continued before the Plovdiv District Court. A hearing took place on 29 May 2000. The court noted that the applicant’s brother had deceased and constituted his three heirs as a party to the proceedings. It questioned an expert on the value of the coins and admitted his report in evidence. It then proceeded to draw up a draft proposal for the partition of the coins between the applicant and his brother’s heirs and reserved judgment. 30.  In a judgment of 2 June 2000 the Plovdiv District Court finalised the proposal for the partition of the coins, deciding to allot two coins to one party of the proceedings and one coin to the other party. The party getting two coins was to pay the other party an amount of money equalling the difference in value between the shares. The question of attributing the said shares to the parties was to be decided by drawing of lots. 31.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. He filed the appeal with the Plovdiv District Court, as required by the relevant rules of civil procedure. On 30 June 2000 the Plovdiv District Court instructed the applicant to specify his grounds of appeal, and on 5 September 2000 declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the applicant had failed to do so. The applicant appealed against this decision on 20 November 2000. In a decision of 21 December 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible. The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 19 April 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court, instructing it to examine the merits of the appeal against the Plovdiv District Court’s decision of 5 September 2000. Having done so, the Plovdiv Regional Court allowed the appeal and held that the appeal against the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment of 2 June 2000 was valid. It thereupon proceeded to examine the merits of the case. 32.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 22 October 2001. On the motion of the applicant it ordered an additional expert report on the value of the coins. 33.  The next hearing was held on 4 December 2001. The court questioned the expert and admitted his report in evidence. It heard the parties’ closing arguments. 34.  In a judgment of 4 January 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment of 2 June 2000. 35.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court of Cassation. He filed the appeal with the Plovdiv Regional Court, as required by the relevant rules of civil procedure. On 20 February 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court instructed him to pay the requisite fee. The applicant failed to do so and in a decision of 22 March 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible. 36.  The proceedings then continued before the Plovdiv District Court. At a hearing held on 21 May 2002 the parties to the case drew lots, whereby it was determined that the applicant was to get one coin, and his brother’s heirs were to get two coins. The court confirmed the allocation of the shares. 37.  The applicant appealed against the drawing of the lots, but on 10 July 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court instructed him to specify the judgment or decision against which he was appealing. The applicant failed to do so and on 30 September 2002 the Plovdiv District Court declared his appeal inadmissible. The applicant did not appeal further.