5. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kumanovo. 6. On 28 July 1992 the applicant, through his representative (who continues to represent him in the proceedings before the Court) brought a civil action against the State and the Kumanovo Veterinary Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) for damages in relation to the slaughter of sheep infected by a contagious disease (brucellosis). 7. Between 23 September 1992 and 2 November 1993 the first-instance court scheduled thirteen hearings. None of them was adjourned on account of the applicant. 8. On 2 November 1993 the then Kumanovo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim after it had heard statements from him and a veterinary inspector who had examined the sheep. On 1 April 1994 the then Skopje District Court upheld that decision. By a decision of 25 October 1994, given upon an appeal on points of law (ревизија) by the applicant dated 31 May 1994, the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It instructed them to assess the value of the sheep slaughtered. 9. Four hearings listed for between 16 November 1995 and 17 January 1996 were adjourned due to the Inspectorate’s failure to provide information about the value of the sheep. The applicant attended all the hearings. 10. On an unspecified date, the first-instance court ruled partially in the applicant’s favour. On 9 January 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal accepted an appeal by the defendants and ordered a retrial concerning the accepted part of the applicant’s claim. 11. On 11 April 1997 the applicant further specified his claim, requesting compensation for loss of income (“the new claim”). The new claim was dismissed by the first-instance court on 18 April 1997. 12. On 21 May 1997 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim. On 18 February 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendants and confirmed the lower court’s decision. On 21 April 1998 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. By a decision of 21 October 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for a renewed examination. 13. None of seven hearings listed between 15 March and 28 November 2000 was rescheduled at the applicant’s request. During that time, the first-instance court requested the Inspectorate to provide information about the marked value of the sheep three times. It further requested a copy of the applicant’s request for compensation that had allegedly been submitted before the relevant administrative authorities. In reply, the court was informed that there was no such request in the case file and that it should order the applicant to provide it. 14. On 28 November 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, having established that he had failed to lodge a request for compensation with the relevant administrative authorities in good time. It established the following facts: on 20 June 1991, the Inspectorate ordered the slaughter of twenty-one sheep. On 5 July 1991 only ten sheep were slaughtered (the others were allegedly slaughtered by the applicant). The report drawn up after the slaughter indicated that the applicant would not be compensated as he had not complied with the order. On a later date, other sheep belonging to the applicant were slaughtered. On 26 November 1991 the applicant was compensated for the sheep slaughtered on the later date, but not for those put down on 5 July 1991. The court further established that on 15 May 1992 the State Veterinary Office had dismissed a claim by the applicant for compensation for the sheep slaughtered on 5 July 1991. The decision was served on the applicant on 2 March 2001. 15. The applicant’s representative appealed, arguing that the lower court, inter alia, had erred in the facts, namely that it wrongly concluded that he had claimed compensation from the relevant authorities out of time even though no such claim had ever been lodged. The applicant has submitted a copy of the appeal which has been date-stamped as having been received by the first-instance court on 15 March 2001. The Government have provided a different copy of the appeal, with a receipt-stamp dated 23 March 2001. The applicant’s version is on plain paper and has been date-stamped on the front page, while the Government’s version is written on the applicant’s representative’s office paper, and bears some handwritten marks. The receipt stamp for the Government’s version is not on one of the typed pages of the document. 16. On 20 June 2001 the Skopje Court of Appeal returned the case file to the first-instance court, in order for it to examine the court’s register of incoming applications (“the register”) to determine when the applicant’s appeal had been received by that court. It decided to do so because the appeal had been drawn up on 14 March and, according to the court’s stamp, submitted on 23 March 2001. It stated that the first-instance court should establish the date of submission of the appeal. 17. On 11 July 2001 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s appeal as out of time. It found that that court’s decision had been served on the applicant on 2 March 2001 and, relying on the court’s stamp acknowledging receipt and the register, that the appeal had been lodged on 23 March 2001. 18. On 11 September 2001 the applicant appealed. He produced his copy of the appeal with the court’s stamp indicating that it had been lodged on 15 March 2001. He also argued that an error in entering the introduction date of the appeal in the register should be attributed to the court and should not prejudice his case. 19. On 20 December 2001 the Skopje Court of Appeal returned the case file to the first-instance court. It did so because the appeal bearing the court’s stamp of 15 March 2001 had been submitted as a copy only, and its validity needed to be verified. In that connection, it referred to the copy of the appeal of 23 March 2001. It therefore instructed the first-instance court to order the applicant to submit the original version of his appeal for verification. 20. On 28 February 2002 the applicant, in response to the first-instance court’s order, submitted the original of his appeal of 15 March 2001. The court noted that that appeal’s contents and nature were the same as that bearing the court’s stamp of 23 March 2001. It also stated that it could not establish the reasons for the discrepancy between the register (indicating 23 March 2001 as the date of receipt) and the original of the applicant’s appeal which bore the court’s stamp attesting that it had been received on 15 March 2001. 21. On 20 March 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal returned the case file to the first-instance court for the third time. It ordered that court to hear a statement from the court’s administrative officer as to when the applicant’s appeal had been recorded in the register and what the reasons for having recorded different dates of receipt had been. 22. In its reply of 23 April 2002, the first-instance court informed the Court of Appeal that, according to that officer’s statement, submissions filed with the court in person had to be recorded in the register on the date of receipt or the next day, and the date noted constituted the official date of submission. No copy of that letter or the court officer’s statement was produced. 23. On 15 May 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the lower court had correctly rejected his appeal as out of time, relying on the court’s stamp acknowledging receipt of the appeal and the register indicating 23 March 2001 as the introduction date. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 September 2002. 24. On 22 October 2002 the applicant requested the public prosecutor to lodge a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court. That request was refused on 6 December 2002. 25. On 23 January 2002 the applicant brought criminal charges for abuse of office against the court’s administrative officer who had allegedly put different receipt dates on the copies of the appeal and entered the wrong date in the register. 26. On 25 February 2003 the public prosecutor rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint as the offence complained of was not prosecutable ex officio. 27. On 11 April 2003 the first-instance court refused a request by the applicant to open an investigation in respect of that officer. That decision was upheld on 11 June 2003 by the Skopje Court of Appeal.