6.  The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1947, who lives in Moosthenning, Germany. 7.  In 1993, the applicant and M.G., a Romanian citizen, decided to set up a commercial company. 8.  The envisaged company was registered in Romania on 9 November 1993 under the name Fivarog Impex SRL (hereinafter called “the company”). 9.  In September 1993, the two associates bought in Germany a truck and merchandise on behalf of the company to be registered. The vehicles and the merchandise were registered on the name of a company belonging to M.G (“company P.”) and should have been registered in the accounting books of the company after its setting up. 10.  In March 1994, the applicant bought a trailer for the company that was registered by M.G. in the name of his company P. 11.  M.G. used both vehicles to carry out the activity of company P. and did not register the counter value of the rendered transport services in any accounting books. 12.  In 1995, the applicant transferred the majority of his shares to M.G., who became the main shareholder and administrator of the company. By an act under private signature, the latter undertook the obligation to deliver to the applicant the truck and the trailer. 13.  In 13 August 1996, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against M.G., accusing him of forgery, use of forged items, fraud, fraudulent management of the company and selling goods placed under judicial seizure. He maintained that M.G. used the money obtained by commercial operations performed on behalf of the company for his personal use, without registering them in the accounting books of the company. He added that the truck and the trailer bought for the company and mostly paid for by him were never registered in the name of the company and were used by the company P., which belonged to M.G. 14.  On 11 March 1998, the police opened a criminal investigation against the applicant and M.G., on suspicion of several offences of an economic nature, namely fraud, fraudulent management of the company and intellectual forgery related to the accounting books of the company. 15.  The applicant joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings, asking for the return of the trailer and the truck and damages. He evaluated the damages only on 25 March 1998, after an accounting report had been prepared. 16.  On 5 March 1999, the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court decided to terminate the investigation against the applicant and M.G. 17.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, which was allowed by the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 26 August 1999. He decided to continue the criminal investigation against M.G. 18.  By a bill of indictment of 17 October 2001 the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court accused M.G. of fraudulent management, smuggling and fiscal evasion. In respect of the offences of use of forged documents and fraud, the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation. The prosecutor also decided to terminate the investigation related to all the offences of which the applicant was accused. 19.  By a judgment of 26 March 2002, the Buftea District Court convicted M.G. of smuggling, fraudulent management and fiscal evasion, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, and placed him on probation. He was also ordered to award pecuniary damages to the company, while the applicant’s request for damages was dismissed on the ground that there was no causal link between the prejudice stated and the offences committed by M.G. 20.  M.G. and the applicant lodged an appeal. The applicant argued, inter alia, that the court was wrong when deciding to dismiss his request for damages. He added that neither the prosecutor nor the court of first instance had analysed or decided on the alleged fraud whose victim he was. 21.  By a decision rendered on 6 December 2002, the Bucharest County Court upheld the judgment of Buftea District Court without providing reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal. 22.  On 17 April 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law filed by M.G., on the ground that the defendant’s right to defence had been infringed, as neither he nor his lawyer had been present at the previous hearing. It also allowed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant on the ground that the Bucharest County Court did not provide any reason for dismissing his appeal. It quashed the decision of 6 December 2002 and remitted the file to the Bucharest County Court. 23.  On 26 April 2004, the Bucharest County Court partially allowed the appeal lodged by M.G., holding that in respect of fiscal evasion and fraudulent management the criminal liability had become statute-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. 24.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds as those raised before the county court. By a final decision rendered on 8 June 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal in respect of the request for damages, on the ground that the county court had not provided reasons for dismissing it. 25.  By a decision rendered on 17 December 2004, the county court dismissed the applicant’s appeal again, on the ground that the prejudice experienced by the applicant was not connected with the offences in the charges against M.G. It pointed out that the applicant had the opportunity to bring a separate civil action for damages in which the contractual liability of M.G might be established. 26.  By a final decision rendered on 4 March 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the county court dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 27.  On 6 February 1996, the applicant lodged a civil action against M.G. seeking recognition of his property right in respect of the truck and trailer bought in 1993 and 1994 respectively. 28.  By a separate action, lodged on the same day, he requested the judicial seizure of the vehicles. 29.  On 1st March 1996 the Bucharest District Court ordered the seizure of the vehicles and decided to join the two actions in a single file. 30.  Despite the seizure order on the vehicles, on 29 February 1996 M.G. sold them to a third party. Therefore, on 5 May 1996 the applicant added a new claim to the joined action, namely for the cancellation of the sale­purchase agreement between M.G. and the third party. 31.  On 5 April 1996, the Bucharest District Court decided to hear separately the action regarding the seizure of vehicles from the action regarding the recognition of the ownership right over the vehicles and the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement. 32.  M.G. lodged an appeal against the order of 1 March 1996 for the seizure of the vehicles, dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 5 June 1996. 33.  On 17 October 1996 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action as ill-founded. It held that from the analysis of the agreement’s clauses concluded between the applicant and M.G. there had been no transfer of ownership rights over the truck and trailer to the applicant. Furthermore, it dismissed the applicant’s request for the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement concluded between M.G. and the third party, on the ground that there were no reasons for the cancellation. 34.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Bucharest County Court. The applicant relied on the fact that the agreement interpreted by the court of first instance as a loan agreement had in fact three different clauses, namely the first one was indeed a loan agreement, the second allowed M.G. to use the vehicles until the date of reimbursement of the loan (understood as a favour granted to M.G. for obtaining the money for reimbursement of the loan) and the third one provided for the transfer of ownership title over the vehicles to him on the date of reimbursement of the loan. 35.  On 20 January 1998 the proceedings were stayed at the request of the applicant until the delivery of a final decision in the criminal proceedings, to which the civil proceedings were closely related. 36.  On 28 September 1999 the civil proceedings were reopened to determine whether the reason for staying them persisted. The applicant was present at the hearings. The hearings were adjourned until 9 November 1999, in order for the parties to be able to prove that the criminal proceedings were still pending. 37.  On 9 November 1999, the Bucharest County Court decided to maintain the suspension of the case on the same legal basis, namely Article 244 point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). 38.  On 30 November 2000 the proceedings were reopened in order to determine whether the criminal proceedings had been finalised. The parties were summoned for 23 January 2001. Noting the applicant’s absence, the court adjourned the hearings until 20 February 2001. 39.  On 20 February 2001, both parties were absent. Therefore, the Court suspended the civil proceedings on another legal ground, that of the absence of the parties, under Article 244 point 2 of the CCP. 40.  On 24 February 2002, the Bucharest County Court reopened the civil proceedings. The applicant was again summoned at the two addresses indicated by him in the file. 41.  On the ground of the parties’ lack of interest in the appeal, indicated by their absence from the hearing without submitting any request for the adjournment of the case, the court decided to extinguish (a constatat perimarea) the applicant’s appeal on 2 April 2002. From the analysis of the documents submitted by the parties it seems that the applicant did not lodge any appeal against the decision. 42.  On 4 May 2005, the applicant requested the reopening of the civil proceedings before the Bucharest District Court on the ground that the criminal proceedings had been completed on 4 March 2005. 43.  On 11 July 2005, the applicant was informed about the decision of 24 February 2002 to dismiss his civil action.