6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Vienna. 7.  On 30 June 1993 a private company owned and represented by the applicant bought a campsite by public auction from Federal Coop Tulcea, a State-owned company. The campsite was located in the village of Jurilovca on the Black Sea coast. 8.  On 10 October 1997 that company brought proceedings against the Jurilovca Local Council, the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation, and the State-owned company it had purchased the campsite from, seeking a court order acknowledging its property rights over the 42,000 sq. m of land the campsite was located on. 9.  By a judgment of 22 October 1997 the Babadag District Court allowed the applicant’s company’s action on the merits and acknowledged its property rights over the said 42,000 sq. m of land. The Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation appealed against the judgment. 10.  Between 13 May 1998 and 11 November 1999 the applicant’s company, claiming that the judgment of 22 October 1997 had become final and that it was the owner of the 42,000 sq. m of land, mortgaged the land as security for several bank loans amounting to 975,000,000 Romanian lei (approximately 114,895 US dollars). 11.  By a judgment of 30 June 1998 the Tulcea County Court allowed the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation’s appeal against the judgment of 22 October 1997 on the merits and dismissed the applicant’s company’s action seeking the acknowledgment of its property rights over the 42,000 sq. m of land. On 30 June 1998 the applicant’s company lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment. 12.  By a final judgment of 30 November 1999 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s company’s appeal as ill-founded. 13.  By a final judgment of 16 February 2004 the Braşov County Court allowed an action brought by the creditors of the applicant’s company and held that the applicant was personally liable for his company’s debt. 14.  By a final judgment of 20 June 2005 the Braşov County Court declared the applicant’s company bankrupt and acknowledged the creditors’ request for the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February 2004. 15.  On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant brought criminal proceedings, together with civil claims, against third parties for the theft and destruction of private property following the alleged destruction and disappearance of huts at his company’s campsite. 16.  On 19 July 1999 and 10 August 2004 the applicant was notified by the Tulcea Prosecutor’s Office that the criminal proceedings and civil claims had been dismissed on the ground that the campsite huts had been destroyed as a result of the applicant’s negligence and the powerful storms that had swept the area between 1995 and 1996. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts. 17.  On an unspecified date the Tulcea Prosecutor’s Office brought criminal proceedings against E.M., the President of the Babadag District Court and the judge who had delivered the judgment of 22 October 1997 (see paragraph 9 above). 18.  On 2 June 1998 E.M., brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraud, acting as an accessory to forgery, and using forged documents, on the ground that the applicant had fraudulently taken out bank loans on the basis of a court order that had not been final, and had mortgaged land which was public property and failed to repay the corresponding loans. The criminal proceedings opened against the applicant were joined to the criminal proceedings opened against E.M. 19.  By an order of 8 July 1998 the Tulcea Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed by him. 20.  By an order of 1 October 1998 the Constanţa Prosecutor’s Office quashed the order of 8 July 1998 and reopened the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 21.  On 18 March 1999 and 15 November 2000 respectively, following requests by the Prosecutor’s Office the Romanian Ministry of Justice, endorsed E.M.’s criminal investigation and indictment. 22.  On 29 December 2000 the Constanţa Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and sent his case for trial to the Constanţa Court of Appeal. 23.  On 6 February 2001 the applicant requested the Constanţa Court of Appeal to adjourn the proceedings pending retention by him of the services of a legal representative. 24.  The Constanţa Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings by five interlocutory judgments delivered between February and April 2001, either at the applicant’s express request or because he had failed to attend the hearings in person, or in order to summon him and other witnesses, or following a request by his chosen legal representative, who could not attend the hearings. In addition, it ordered, inter alia, that the third parties be correctly summoned to the said hearings, and allowed a request by E.M. for the proceedings to be adjourned on account of his illness. 25.  By eight interlocutory judgments delivered between 19 March and 17 July 2001, the Constanţa Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings pending the summoning of several witnesses in the case; the examination of other evidence requested by the defendants; a request by the applicant’s legal representative to be allowed to submit written observations to it and deliberations. 26.  By a judgment of 27 July 2001 the Constanţa Court of Appeal ordered that the case file be transferred to the Constanţa Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation on the ground that the evidence available in the file concerning the alleged withdrawal by the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation of its appeal against the judgment of 22 October 1997 had not been sufficiently investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office. The Constanţa Prosecutor’s Office and E.M. appealed on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s judgment to the Court of Cassation. 27.  By interlocutory judgments of 14 December 2001 and 22 March 2002 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings in order to allow E.M. to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice and to prepare his defence. It also noted that, as a result of his medical condition, E.M. could not attend the hearing of 22 March 2002. 28.  By an interlocutory judgment of 17 May 2002 the Court of Cassation allowed an unconstitutionality objection raised by E.M., referred the case to the Constitutional Court and adjourned the proceedings pending its decision. 29.  By a final judgment of 7 November 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the unconstitutionality objection as ill-founded. 30.  By an interlocutory judgment of 14 February 2003 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings on account of the absence of E.M.’s legal representative, and in order to summon the applicant. 31.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant submitted written observations to the Court of Cassation for the hearing of 11 April 2003. 32.  By an interlocutory judgment of 11 April 2003 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings in order to hold deliberations. 33.  By a final judgment of 22 April 2003 the Court of Cassation allowed the Constanţa Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal against the judgment of 27 July 2001, finding that the evidence in the file concerning the alleged withdrawal by the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation of its appeal against the judgment of 22 October 1997 had been sufficiently investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office. The court also decided of its own motion that in the best interests of justice the case should be transferred to the Bacău Court of Appeal. 34.  By interlocutory judgments of 30 September, 21 October and 4 November 2003, the Bacău Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings following requests by the applicant and his co-accused to be allowed time to retain the services of legal representatives and to prepare their defence, as well as the applicant’s failure to attend all the hearings. 35.  By an interlocutory judgment of 12 November 2003 the Bacău Court of Appeal allowed an unconstitutionality objection raised by the applicant and adjourned the proceedings pending a decision by the Constitutional Court. 36.  By a final judgment of 4 May 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the unconstitutionality objection raised by the applicant as ill‑founded. 37.  By seven interlocutory judgments delivered between 8 June and 28 October 2004 the Bacău Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings as a result of the defendants’ absence, because the applicant’s legal representative was experiencing medical problems, because there had been errors in the summoning of the other parties involved in the case, pending the summoning of several witnesses and the examination of the evidence and in order to hold deliberations. 38.  By a judgment of 2 November 2004 the Bacău Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of fraud, inter alia, and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. In addition, it ordered the applicant to repay the bank loans and to pay penalty interest. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment with the Court of Cassation. He argued that the first-instance court had failed to summon one of the civil parties to the proceedings; had failed to examine the lawfulness of minutes drafted on 27 May 1998 by the prosecutor P.V. and the statements of some of the witnesses heard by the authorities; had wrongfully assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions; and had failed to determine the legal status of the 42,000 sq. m of land on the basis of expert evidence. 39.  By interlocutory judgments of 9 February, 23 March, 11 May and 22 June 2005, the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings on account of summoning errors, a request by the defendants to be allowed to retain the services of legal representatives and to prepare their defence, and E.M.’s lawyer’s inability to attend on account of his medical condition. 40.  By interlocutory judgments of 7 and 21 September 2005 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings on account of the defendants’ lawyer’s inability to attend, and of summoning errors. 41.  By a final judgment of 2 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 2 November 2004. The court held that the failure of the first-instance court to summon a civil party to the proceedings was contestable by the said civil party but not the applicant; that the minutes of 27 May 1998 drafted by the prosecutor P.V. had been lawful; and that the first-instance court had duly examined all the witness statements, dismissing some of them as dishonest, and correctly assessed the evidence and the applicable legal provisions, as well as the status of the 42,000 sq. m of land, on the basis of the available evidence, which had been sufficient without the admission of additional evidence. 42.  Between 18 March 2002 and 3 September 2003 the applicant was hospitalised three times in the Târgu-Mureş Institute for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases, a State-owned hospital. He was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. On 9 April 2002 he underwent emergency heart surgery. He was recommended and received treatment and his condition was monitored. 43.  Between 11 November 2006 and 8 January 2007 the applicant was detained in Ploieşti Prison. 44.  On 14 November 2006 he visited the medical office at Ploiesti Prison and was scheduled for a cardiological examination at the Ploieşti County Emergency Hospital the following day. 45.  On 15 November 2006 he received treatment for his condition. He was also advised to stop smoking, to avoid physical effort, to follow a low sodium and low calorie diet and recommended permanent treatment with several drugs. 46.  Between 16 November 2006 and 3 January 2007 the applicant was taken to the prison’s medical office on nine occasions. He was diagnosed and provided with the recommended treatment. On 16 and 23 November and 1 December 2006 he refused to accept part of the treatment provided on the ground that he already had the necessary medication in his room. 47.  During his detention in Ploieşti Prison he was given a special diet. 48.  From 23 January to 9 February 2007, from 24 December 2007 to 13 February 2008, and from 16 April to 25 May 2008 the applicant was repeatedly hospitalised in the Dej Prison Hospital. On each occasion, he was administered the recommended treatment for his medical condition and was given a low sodium diet. 49.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant brought proceedings before the Bacău Court of Appeal seeking the postponement of the execution of his prison sentence on account of his medical condition. 50.  According to an expert medical report drawn up by the Braşov Forensic Institute on 9 December 2005, the applicant was suffering from, inter alia, a serious heart condition which required revascularisation surgery that could not be performed in a prison hospital. Consequently, the medical report recommended the suspension of the execution of the applicant’s prison sentence for three months. 51.  By a final judgment of 15 December 2005 the Bacău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s action on the basis of the expert medical report and postponed the execution of his prison sentence for three months. 52.  On 6 March 2006 the applicant brought a second set of proceedings, seeking the postponement of the execution of his prison sentence for an additional three months. He argued that because of a dental abscess he had been unable to undergo surgery. 53.  According to an expert medical report drawn up by the Braşov Forensic Institute on 29 March 2006, the applicant needed treatment for his dental problem before surgery could be performed; the surgery was thus re‑scheduled for 5 May 2006. 54.  By a final judgment of 13 April 2006 the Bacău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s action on the basis of the expert medical report and extended the postponement of his prison sentence for three months, from 28 March to 28 June 2006. 55.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant brought a third set of proceedings, seeking the postponement of the execution of his prison sentence for an additional six months on account of his medical condition. He argued, inter alia, that owing to circumstances beyond his control, in particular, various infections he had contracted, he was unable to undergo surgery. 56.  By a final judgment of 16 October 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s action. The court held that an expert medical report by the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute in Bucharest confirmed that the applicant had a serious condition. However, the postponement of his detention could only be justified if he needed to undergo surgery, since alternative medical treatment in lieu of surgery was also available in prison hospitals and according to the expert report could be provided to him with the same results as in civilian hospitals. Moreover, the applicant’s detention had been postponed twice by the domestic courts and he had already had the opportunity to undergo surgery. Furthermore, his claim that his surgery had been rescheduled from 27 May to 8 September 2006 on account of infections that needed medical treatment prior to his operation was not supported by any evidence in the file. 57.  On 22 October 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Cluj Court of Appeal seeking the suspension of the execution of his prison sentence on medical grounds. 58.  By an interlocutory judgment of 14 November 2007 the Cluj Court of Appeal ordered an expert medical report by the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute in Bucharest in respect of the applicant’s medical condition. It dismissed the applicant’s request for the court to rely on the previous expert medical reports rather than ordering a new one, on the ground that the applicant had filed a new request for the suspension of his prison sentence and the Court of Appeal therefore had to administer the evidence directly and could not rely on evidence administered by a separate court. The proceedings were adjourned pending the completion of the expert medical report. 59.  By an interlocutory judgment of 12 December 2007 the Cluj Court of Appeal noted, inter alia, that no expert medical report had yet been produced by the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute in Bucharest, and it adjourned the proceedings pending the completion of the report. It also instructed the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to expedite the expert medical report and informed them that the proceedings had been adjourned until 16 January 2008. 60.  On 11 January 2008 the medical report by the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute was completed; it confirmed that the applicant was suffering, inter alia, from a serious heart condition which required revascularisation surgery, and that his condition had worsened. The report concluded, on the one hand, that if the applicant consented to be operated on he would have to be admitted to a civilian hospital for surgery and would be out of prison for approximately three months, and on the other, that if he did not consent to surgery, medical treatment available in lieu of surgery was also available in prison hospitals and consequently the execution of the applicant’s sentence did not need to be suspended. 61.  On 17 January 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal asked the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to provide it with the expert medical report prepared in respect of the applicant’s case. 62.  On 4 February 2008 the Institute informed the Cluj Court of Appeal that the completed expert medical report in the applicant’s case had been sent to it on 16 January 2008. It also submitted a copy of the report. 63.  On the same date the Cluj Court of Appeal asked the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to amend the expert medical report in order to expressly state whether the surgery was a medical emergency or whether, on the basis of the existing medical papers and the applicant’s diagnosis, it could be postponed until the applicant had served his prison sentence. It also informed them that the proceedings had been adjourned until 27 February 2008. 64.  On 28 February 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal asked the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to urgently amend the expert medical report in the applicant’s case by answering the question raised by it on 4 February 2008. It also informed the Forensic Institute that the proceedings had been adjourned until 26 March 2008. 65.  On 5 March 2008 the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute informed the Cluj Court of Appeal in reply to their question of 4 February 2008 that in the absence of the applicant’s consent the surgery could not be performed even if it was an emergency, and also that the medical treatment available in lieu of surgery was available in prison and therefore there was no requirement for the execution of the applicant’s sentence to be suspended on medical grounds. 66.  By interlocutory judgments of 26 March and 9 April 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings pending a reply from the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to its question of 4 February 2008, and informed the Institute that the proceedings had been adjourned. 67.  On 8 May 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal asked the Higher Forensic Commission attached to the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute to answer its question of 4 February 2008 regardless of whether or not the applicant had consented to be operated on. It also informed the Higher Forensic Commission that the proceedings had been adjourned until 4 June 2008. 68.  On 9 May 2008 the Higher Forensic Commission attached to the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute informed the court that surgery was recommended in the applicant’s case and that without it the risks the applicant faced were difficult to predict and could be life threatening. The report also noted that the surgery was not a pressing medical emergency, given that it had been recommended since 2005, and that although the execution of the applicant’s prison sentence had been suspended twice on account of his medical condition, he had failed to have the surgery. At the same time, it informed the court that the surgery in question was a high risk procedure, having a mortality rate in excess of fifty per cent, and it was therefore mandatory by law to obtain the consent of the patient prior to surgery. 69.  By a judgment of 4 June 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s action and ordered the suspension of the execution of his sentence for three months from the date the judgement became final. It held, inter alia, that according to the expert medical report available in the case‑file the applicant’s condition was life-threatening and required surgical intervention in a civilian hospital. The court also prohibited the applicant from leaving the country, inter alia. 70.  On 6 June 2008 the Cluj Prosecutor’s Office informed the Cluj Court of Appeal that they waived their right to an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 4 June 2008. 71.  The judgment of 4 June 2008 became final on 9 June 2008. The applicant was released from prison on the same date. 72.  On an unspecified date in June 2008 the Târgu-Mureş Institute for Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases informed the applicant that he was scheduled for surgery on 23 September 2008 pending completion of other medical tests prior to surgery. 73.  On 26 June 2008 the applicant lodged an application with the Bacău Court of Appeal seeking to have the suspension of the execution of his prison sentence extended on the ground that he was scheduled for surgery on 23 September 2008 but was due to return to prison on an earlier date. 74.  By a final judgment of 24 July 2008 the Bacău Court of Appeal referred the case to the Cluj Court of Appeal on the ground that the latter was the competent court ratione loci to examine the applicant’s application seeking to have the suspension of the execution of his prison sentence extended, as it had also examined his application for the suspension in question. 75.  By a final judgment of 26 August 2008 the Cluj Court of Appeal found that it was not competent to examine the application and referred the case to the Court of Cassation in order for that court to decide which Court of Appeal was competent ratione loci to examine the applicant’s application. 76.  On 2 September 2008 the applicant requested the Court of Cassation to expedite the proceedings concerning the decision in respect of the Court of Appeal competent ratione loci to examine his application for the extension of the suspension of the execution of his prison sentence. He asked the court, inter alia, to bring forward the hearing of his case from 14 October 2008 to an earlier date. He argued that if the Court of Cassation failed to expedite the proceedings, he would be recalled to prison and that would result in him losing his appointment for the surgery. Consequently, his heart condition would worsen further. 77.  On 12 September 2008 the Court of Cassation notified the applicant that the date of the hearing of his case had been brought forward and summoned him to appear before it on 16 September 2008. 78.  In a letter of 10 November 2008 the applicant informed the Court that because the first hearing before the Court of Cassation had been scheduled for 16 September 2008 and he had felt that his life was thus being endangered by the Romanian authorities, he had decided to flee the country. He had travelled to Austria, where he had applied for political asylum.