5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Zemun (Serbia). 6.  On 21 February 1977 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Podgorica found X, Y and Z guilty of participating in a fight (učestvovanje u tuči) on 14 July 1973. 7.  On 18 December 1978 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against X, Y and Z seeking compensation for an eye injury he had suffered in the fight and the subsequent loss of the sight in his right eye, and for loss of income caused by his reduced working capacity. 8.  On 18 March 1980 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant on the basis of his school certificates, his employment record, documents concerning his injury and medical treatment as well as two expert witnesses’ statements. This judgment was partly upheld by the District Court (Okružni sud) in Podgorica on 30 December 1980. On 10 May 1983 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica quashed the previous judgments and ordered a re-trial. There is no information in the case file as to how many hearings had been held and/or adjourned before the Supreme Court issued its ruling. 9.  Between 10 May 1983 and 21 June 1990 five hearings were adjourned and one hearing was held. Between 23 September 1985 and 6 January 1986 the impugned proceedings had been stayed due to the applicant’s absence from a prior hearing. 10.  On 21 June 1990 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant.  The judgment was based on the evidence previously adduced as well as on further documents relating to the applicant’s health and employment, and another three expert witnesses’ opinions. On 14 May 1991 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered another re-trial. 11.  Between 14 May 1991 and 16 October 2008 seven more hearings were adjourned and one hearing was held. 12.  On 16 October 2008 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant. The judgment relied on: the opinions of four experts given by November 1986, documents obtained by May 1993, the statements of four witnesses provided between March 1997 and April 2002, and the statements of the applicant, X and another expert witness made between 6 November 2005 and 19 November 2007. 13.  On 18 September 2009, the High Court in Podgorica quashed this judgment and ordered another re-trial. 14.  On 13 September 2010 the Court of First Instance decided that the case should be examined afresh given that it had been assigned to a new judge. The court requested another opinion of a financial expert. As for the remaining evidence, the parties agreed that the minutes from previous hearings could be read. 15.  The next hearing was scheduled for 2 November 2010. There is no information in the case file as to whether this hearing took place or if there were any further developments in the case. 16.  By 3 March 2004, which is when the Convention entered into force in respect of the respondent State, the applicant had amended the amount of compensation he had sought on seven occasions, and nine hearings had been adjourned due to his absence or upon his request. 17.  After the Convention had entered into force in respect of Montenegro the applicant amended the amount he sought on two further occasions. 18.  On 19 January 2006 the applicant requested an additional financial expertise. 19.  There is no information in the case file as to how many hearings in total were held and/or adjourned. 20.  Y and Z died on 19 May 2007 and 14 May 1988, respectively.