4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Kirovograd. 5.  He is a former employee of a company “Drukmash” (“the company”) and joint inventor of two products. The company used the patent rights for these inventions under contracts it entered into with the applicant. 6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company in the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (“the District Court”). He alleged that the company had not paid him instalments due under the contract for the use of the first invention and sought an order requiring the company to comply with its terms. He also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 7.  On 1 March 1996 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the contract for the use of the first invention was null and void. 8.  Later, in the course of the proceedings, the applicant requested the court to annul the company’s right to use the patents for the inventions. He also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the company’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations. 9.  The first hearing in the case was held on 5 August 1998. 10.  On 29 June 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The company lodged an appeal in cassation. 11.  On 29 July 1999 the District Court refused to hear the company’s appeal in cassation as it had failed to pay the court fees. 12.  On 20 October 1999 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court[1] rejected a protest by the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor against that judgment. 13.  On 23 February 2000, following a protest by the Deputy Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 29 June 1999 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 14.  On 18 December 2000 the District Court found against the applicant. 15.  On 15 February 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration on the ground that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case. 16.  On 7 June 2001 the District Court found against the applicant.  The applicant appealed in cassation. 17.  On 13 November 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration on the ground that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case. 18.  On 1 March 2002 the Head of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant’s case be transferred to another court since the District Court had failed to consider it within a reasonable time. 19.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant’s case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd for consideration. 20.  On 20 November 2002 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd found against the applicant. On 5 February 2003 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 21.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 23 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected that appeal in a decision which was served on the applicant on 16 April 2004. 22.  In the course of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence ratione temporis two expert reports were obtained. This took about seven months. According to documents provided by the Government, out of some forty-three hearings scheduled during the relevant period, four hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request, seven because the defendant’s representative failed to appear and one at the request of the latter. No appropriate steps were taken by the domestic authorities to ensure the defendant’s representative presence in court. Three hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings and another because the judge was ill. Two hearings were adjourned because of the absence of both parties.