5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant, a former customs officer, was accused of accepting bribes. On 7 December 1999 his home was searched. According to the applicant, several of his possessions that were seized during the search subsequently disappeared. 7.  On 22 December 2000 the Ciocana District Court acquitted the applicant. 8.  Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Chişinău Regional Court (Tribunalul Chişinău) upheld the first-instance judgment on 19 September 2001. 9.  On 25 September 2001 the public prosecutor appealed on points of law. 10.  On 13 December 2001 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal on points of law and quashed the judgments of 22 December 2000 and 19 September 2001, remitting the case to the lower courts. 11.  On 27 June 2003 the Ciocana District Court again acquitted the applicant. 12.  On 14 July 2003 the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office informed the District Court that the prosecutor dealing with the case was on leave from 14 July to 26 August 2003 and wished the examination of the case to be adjourned until his return. 13.  On 17 July 2003 the registry of the Ciocana District Court informed the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office that the reasoned judgment had been filed with the registry. 14.  On 26 August 2003 the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment of 27 June 2003. 15.  On 4 November 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time. It held:
“[The appeal] was lodged only on 26 August 2003, whereas the prosecutor ... had been informed of the finalisation of the judgment on 17 July 2003. Accordingly, the time-limit laid down in Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appealing has not been observed.
The Court of Appeal finds that the reason given by the public prosecutor, namely being on ordinary leave, is unjustified. ...” 16.  On 31 December 2003 the public prosecutor appealed on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s decision. 17.  On 4 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the admissibility of the appeal as a bench of three judges. On 17 February 2004 it sent the case back to the Chişinău Court of Appeal, holding in particular:
“... it appears from the case file that the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office was informed that the file had been received at the registry ... on 17 July 2003.
In an official letter dated 14 July 2003, the deputy prosecutor ... had informed the Ciocana District Court that the prosecutor [dealing with the case] would be on leave from 14 July to 25 August 2003.
The public prosecutor’s appeal was registered at the Ciocana District Court on 26 August 2003, the day after he returned from leave.
In accordance with Article 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [only] the public prosecutor who has participated in the trial is entitled to appeal ...
In the specific circumstances, [the Supreme Court of Justice] considers that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the prosecutor’s absence on ordinary leave was not a valid reason for reopening the time allowed for an appeal. ...” 18.  On 20 May 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal accepted that the appeal by the public prosecutor had been lodged within the statutory time-limit, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 70,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (4,915.04 euros (EUR) at the time), in addition to disqualifying him from holding posts in the customs department for five years. Addressing the question of the date on which the public prosecutor’s appeal had been lodged, it held as follows:
“An examination of the case file shows that the trial court acquitted [the applicant] on 27 June 2003 ... on account of the fact that the acts committed by him did not entail the constituent elements of the offence, and in an official letter dated 8 July 2003 the public prosecutor asked to be informed about the date on which the full version of the judgment would be finalised. In another official letter dated 14 July 2003, the deputy prosecutor ... informed the Ciocana District Court that the prosecutor [dealing with the case] would be on leave from 14 July until 26 August 2003. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s annual leave is a valid reason for finding that his appeal was lodged within the time-limit ...” 19.  The applicant appealed on points of law against that decision, relying in particular on the fact that the public prosecutor’s appeal had been lodged out of time. 20.  On 3 November 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. 21.  In a letter of 6 December 2011 the applicant informed the Court of his intention to make an application to the national authorities under Law no. 87 of 1 July 2011 on compensation by the State for damage caused by the excessive length of proceedings or failure to execute a judicial decision within a reasonable time.