5.  On 15 December 1993 a State-owned bank, Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas, brought a civil action against the applicant, alleging that the latter had failed to repay a number of loans granted to his companies. 6.  On 30 August 1994 the Kėdainiai District Court granted the bank’s claim in the sum of 97,563.60 Lithuanian litas (LTL) against the applicant’s personal venture “Nida”. On 28 May 1997 another State owned bank, the Turto bankas, became the successor of the creditor’s claim. 7.  On 24 January 1995 in the above-mentioned civil case the Kėdainiai District Court ordered the seizure of the applicant’s company’s vehicles. 8.  On the same day the prosecution instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion that the loans from the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas had been obtained by fraud on a large scale (sukčiavimas stambiu mastu) (Article 274 § 3 of the Criminal Code as then in force). 9.  The applicant was summoned as a witness for questioning before the prosecutors on 23 February 1995. However, he failed to appear. 10.  On 12 April 1995 the Lietuvos akcinis inovacinis bankas submitted a civil claim in the sum of LTL 97,536 in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 11.  On 13 April 1995 the prosecution opened a new set of criminal proceedings under the then Article 274 § 3 of the Criminal Code concerning another episode of alleged large-scale fraud and Article 316 of the Criminal Code for deliberate failure to repay loans (skolininko nesąžiningumas ir apgaulė). 15.  On 31 August 1995 the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas submitted a civil claim against the applicant in the sum of nearly 3,000,000 LTL. On 30 March 1998 the Turto bankas took over the former creditor’s claim against the applicant. 17.  On 23 October 1996 the Kėdainiai District Court found that the pre-trial examination had been incomplete and returned the case to the prosecution. The court also decided to charge two Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas employees, M.B. and R.L., who were suspected of aiding and abetting the applicant. 18.  On 29 January 1997 a new set of criminal proceedings was opened. The applicant was accused of selling or hiding property that could have been used for the repayment of his loans (Article 316 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 20.  On 11 February 1998 the civil proceedings against the applicant were discontinued, since the civil claim was submitted in the criminal proceedings against him. 23.  On 26 October 1998 new charges on three counts of forgery of official documents (the then Article 207 § 2 of the Criminal Code) were brought against the applicant. 24.  On 7 January 1999 the prosecution approved the bill of indictment. During the pre-trial investigation it was established that the applicant, together with M.B. and R.L., had acted in an organised group and from 1991 to 1993 had embezzled and stolen (iššvaistė ir pasisavino) money from the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas in the sum of LTL 750,181 (approximately 217,254 euros (EUR)). They were also suspected of having forged nine credit and mortgage agreements (kredito sutartis ir turto įkeitimo sutartis), thereby having caused significant damage to the State. The charges against the applicant and the two co-accused amounted to 44 counts of fraud, forgery and unlawfully obtaining the property of another. 25.  On 28 March 2001 the Kėdainiai District Court, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, returned the case for additional pre-trial investigation. On 24 May 2001 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case for trial. 26.  On 29 April 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court convicted the applicant of forgery and unlawfully obtaining the property of another (Articles 207 § 2 and 275 § 3 of the Criminal Code as then in force). The same day the obligation on the applicant not to leave his place of residence was lifted. 27.  On 11 July 2002 the Panevėžys Regional Court heard the case on appeal. The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that it was partial and could not decide the case. As to the merits, it quashed the Kėdainiai District Court’s judgment, returning the case for a fresh examination because of various procedural irregularities. In particular, it was established that the first-instance court had breached its duty to respect the principle of the secrecy of deliberations. 28.  On 26 August 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court adjourned the examination of the case because one of the co-accused, R.L., had fallen ill with cancer. On 23 September 2002 that court held one more hearing. The applicant and the other co-accused, M.B., requested the court to adjourn the proceedings until R.L. had recovered. However, the Kėdainiai District Court dismissed their request, noting that given the serious nature of R.L.’s illness it was not possible to ascertain if and when the latter would be able to take part in the proceedings. The court disjoined the charges against R.L. in order to avoid a delay in the proceedings against the applicant and M.B. 29.  On 28 October 2002 the Kėdainiai District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a supplementary audit examination to be executed and for certain supplementary documents to be obtained. The court noted that the applicant’s requests had been addressed by earlier court rulings and that it was obvious that the applicant was merely attempting to prolong the criminal proceedings. 30.  On 8 January 2003 the Kėdainiai District Court convicted the applicant of forgery of an official document and of unlawfully obtaining the property of another. The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and the confiscation of half of his assets. M.B., the applicant’s co-accused, was also convicted but had her sentence lifted. The court also granted the Turto bankas’ civil claim in the sum of LTL 750,181.17, to be paid by the applicant and M.B. The court noted that the civil claim could be paid out of seized property. 31.  At a hearing of 13 May 2003 at the Panevėžys Regional Court, the applicant alleged that the chamber which was to decide his case was partial. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation as unfounded. The applicant further alleged the partiality of the whole Panevėžys Regional Court and requested that his case be heard by another regional court. The Panevėžys Regional Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeal for the questions of partiality to be resolved. 32.  On 4 June 2003 the Court of Appeal found the applicant’s complaint of partiality to be unsubstantiated. The case was returned to the Panevėžys Regional Court for examination. 33.  On 14 October 2003 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the trial court’s judgment of 8 January 2003 and adopted a new decision. The applicant was acquitted of unlawfully obtaining the property of another; the charges of forgery were reclassified, and the proceedings in this respect discontinued on account of the fact that the criminal prosecution had become time-barred. The seizure of the applicant’s property was lifted. The Turto bankas’ civil claim was left unexamined. 35.  On 16 November 2001 the applicant was accused of faulty accounting practices (Article 322 of the Criminal Code as then in force). 39.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, alleging that the courts had erred in fact and law, that the first-instance judge had been biased, and that the court of appeal had failed to respond to his arguments. 40.  On 14 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, no procedural irregularities having been detected. 42.  On 4 July 2002 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order. On 10 September 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision. 43.  On 13 September 2005 the Panevėžys Regional Court approved the claim of the Turto bankas in the sum of LTL 3,015,423.17 against the applicant’s personal venture “Nida”. 45.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant, invoking, inter alia, Articles 6.246 and 6.272 of the Civil Code, lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Court claiming redress in the total amount of LTL 6,015,423.17 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which he alleged to have sustained “due to the unlawful actions of the court when that court had been adjudicating the civil case”. In particular, the applicant noted that since 1990 he had been the owner of a personal venture “Nida”. From 1993 to 1996 the authorities brought a number of criminal charges against him. Moreover, a number of civil claims had been lodged against that company. On 30 March 1998 the Turto bankas took over the creditor’s claim. The applicant observed that, by a decision of 13 September 2005, the Panevėžys Regional Court granted the Turto bankas’ claim in the sum of LTL 3 015 423.17. In the applicant’s view, that decision had been unfounded. The applicant further noted that:
“from 1993 to 2003 I had been defending my rights in courts against unlawful claims of [the creditors]. Moreover, for 10 years corrupt law enforcement officials unlawfully continued to criminally prosecute me and attempted to break me down psychologically and morally. ... However, after 10 years, justice had been done and by the judgment of 14 October 2003 I had been acquitted in the criminal case and the unlawful civil claims had been left unexamined. ... Nonetheless, by a decision of 13 September 2005, the judge of the Panevėžys Regional Court openly mocked the above judgment, which had already entered into force, as well as my ten-year struggle to achieve justice in the Lithuanian courts, and by unlawfully granting the [Turto bankas’] creditor’s claim in the sum of LTL 3 015 423.17 performed an act of Judas ...” 46.  The applicant concluded that, in addition to pecuniary damage, the Panevėžys Regional Court’s decision of 13 September 2005 had caused him non-pecuniary damage, given that that decision had humiliated him and caused him psychological suffering. As compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed LTL 3 000 000 from the State of Lithuania. 48.  By a decision of 21 June 2006, the Vilnius Regional Court suspended the civil proceedings until the creditors’ claims were resolved in the civil case against the personal venture of the applicant. The court noted, inter alia, that:
“The plaintiff Donatas Šulcas submitted a lawsuit, the object (ieškinio dalykas) of which is the damage caused by the Panevėžys Regional Court’s [allegedly] unlawful decision [of 13 September 2005] by which that court granted the Turto bankas’ creditor’s claim in Donatas Šulcas’ personal venture’s “Nida” case. ...”. 49.  By a decision of 30 June 2006, the Panevėžys Regional Court granted the Turto bankas’ creditor’s claim in the amount of LTL 97,536.60.