5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Maribor. 6.  On 16 January 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Maribor Basic Court against the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning for an injunction that they put into effect a decision on the construction of a dam close to a hydroelectric power plant built by the applicant. 7.  On 18 March 1993 the applicant modified his claim into payment of pecuniary damages. 8.   By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court had scheduled three main hearings of which one had been adjourned. 9.  On 28 July 1995 the Maribor Local Court issued an order declaring itself as not having the subject-matter jurisdiction and referring the case to the Maribor District Court. 10.  Two main hearings were held on 3 July 1996 and 19 September 1996 respectively. 11.  Further two hearings scheduled for 24 October 1996 and 20 November 1997 were adjourned due the applicant’s health problems. 12.  A further hearing was held on 26 February 1999. 13. On 30 March 1999 the court held the last main hearing and issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 14 September 1999 the Maribor Higher Court quashed the first instance court’s decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court. 15.  Five hearings were held in the new proceedings between 11 January 2001 and 7 November 2002. On the latter date the Maribor District Court issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 16.  On 11 July 2006 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and altered the decision on the merits, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties lodged an appeal on points of law. 17.  On 8 May 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s appeal on points of law and altered the decision of the higher court by dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. 18.  On 28 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.