4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tver. 5.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against a private housing construction company in the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver (“the District Court”), seeking conclusion of a co-investment agreement and registration of his property title to a flat. 6.  The court scheduled the first hearing for 4 January 2003. 7.  On 18 March 2003 the respondent filed its objections to the claim. 8.  The hearing of 2 April 2003 did not take place following the respondent’s failure to appear. 9.  On 8 July 2003 the applicant informed the court that he would be out of town until September 2003. 10.  It appears that the next hearing was scheduled by the court for 13 October 2004. The applicant did not appear at this hearing, following which it was adjourned. According to the applicant, he had not been notified of the hearing. The parties did not supply any evidence to support their accounts of the event. 11.  The hearing of 27 December 2004 did not take place as the judge was ill. 12.  On 29 April 2005 the case was handed over to a different judge. 13.  On 26 May 2005 the court adjourned the hearing in view of the insufficiency of evidence. According to the applicant, at the same hearing he learned that the respondent had filed objections to his claim on 18 March 2003. 14.  On 30 May 2005 the applicant requested a certified copy of the respondent’s objections. 15.  On 4 July 2005 the respondent supplemented its observations on the claim. The applicant received a copy of the supplementary observations on 20 October 2005. 16.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant replied to the objections of 18 March 2003. 17.  The hearing of 12 August 2005 did not take place as the judge was on vacation. 18.  The hearing of 11 October 2005 had to be postponed following the respondent’s failure to appear. 19.  On 2 and 21 December 2005 the applicant specified and supplemented his claim. The hearing of 21 December 2005 could not proceed as the respondent’s representative produced an expired power of attorney. 20.  On 27 January and 21 March 2006 the applicant effectively requested that the hearings be adjourned due to his failure to obtain certain evidence from a municipal agency. 21.  On 3 May 2006 the court adjourned examination of the case till September 2006 having required the applicant to supply the documents concerning registration of his property title to the disputed flat. 22.  The hearing of 3 September 2006 was adjourned to enable the court to make an inquiry for some additional evidence on behalf of the applicant. 23.  The hearings of 13 and 14 September 2006 took place as scheduled. 24.  On 18 September 2006 the court sent an inquiry seeking to obtain the materials of the applicant’s another civil action. 25.  The hearings of 19 and 21 September 2006 had to be adjourned as the sought materials had not arrived to the court. 26.  The hearing of 16 October 2006 did not take place as the applicant was ill. 27.  On 23 November 2006 the District Court disallowed the claims. At the time only the operative part of the judgment was read out. 28.  On 1 December 2006 the applicant filed an appeal. 29.  On 4 and 8 December and 9 January 2007 the applicant requested a copy of the reasoned judgment. 30.  At the appeal hearing of 23 January 2007 the applicant filed a supplement to his appeal challenging the reasoning of the first-instance judgment in a detailed manner, following which the court returned the case to the first instance for extension of the time-limit for the supplementary appeal. 31.  On 1 and 14 March 2007 the trial court sent the applicant a copy of the reasoned judgment of 23 November 2006. 32.  On 16 March 2007 the time-limit for the supplementary appeal was extended. In its decision the District Court cited the applicant as saying that he had read the reasoned judgment at the appeal court on 12 January 2007. 33.  The appeal hearing of 24 April 2007 could not proceed as the respondent had not received a copy of the applicant’s supplementary appeal. 34.  The next hearing of 15 May 2007 was adjourned to enable the parties to conclude a friendly settlement. However, on 22 May 2007 the applicant informed the court that the respondent was not undertaking any steps to reach such settlement. 35.  On 29 May 2007 the Tver Regional Court upheld the judgment of 23 November 2006 on appeal. 36.  In separate proceedings, the applicant sued the Tver town administration seeking a housing certificate. By a judgment of 26 March 2004, the Tsentralniy District Court of Tver granted his claim. On 27 April 2004 the Tver Regional Court quashed the judgment and issued a new judgment rejecting the claim.