4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hetes, Hungary. 5.  In February 1990 the applicant’s father (“the plaintiff”) had a traffic accident. With a view to seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for loss of work capacity, he brought an action on 30 December 1991 against his insurer before the Pest Central District Court. 6.  Hearings took place on 22 May and 12 November 1992. On the latter date, the District Court appointed medical and agricultural experts. The person who had caused the plaintiff’s injuries intervened in the case. 7.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 1992 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s request for interim measures to be applied. On 3 March 1993 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal against this decision. 8.  The medical expert submitted his opinion on 25 May 1993. On 16 June 1993 the District Court held a hearing and on 12 July 1993 the agricultural expert presented his opinion. 9. The next hearing took place on 28 January 1994. Pursuant to a change in legislation, the action was extended to include the National Institute for Development. 10.  On 4 February 1994 the District Court decided to award 89,550 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest to the plaintiff and granted him an allowance. 11.  On appeal, on 10 November 1994 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the appealed part of the first instance decision and remitted the case in this respect. 12.  On 21 December 1994 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s renewed request for interim measures. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 27 April 1995. 13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held a hearing on 14 June 1995 and decided to obtain the opinions of medical, agricultural and motor-vehicle experts. A hearing took place on 15 November 1995. On 14 December 1995 the District Court ordered that the agricultural expert’s opinion be completed. On 27 February 1996 the court appointed a new expert. 14.  On 22 April 1996 the District Court excused the agricultural expert since he had previously worked for the first defendant and appointed a third one. 15.  On 21 May 1996 the agricultural expert appointed informed the court that he was not competent to provide an opinion on the issues raised. On 23 May 1996 the District Court discharged the expert and invited the parties to submit proposals for a competent agricultural expert. 16.  On 23 August 1996 the District Court dismissed the request of the Hungarian State to join the proceedings due to a change in legislation. On the appeals of the first defendant and the State, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and gave the State leave to join the proceedings. 17.  On 17 December 1996 the District Court appointed another agricultural expert. On 24 March 1997 he was warned that he would be fined in the event of his non-compliance with his duties. This expert was replaced by another expert on 2 April 1997. 18.  On account of the wishes of the experts to be excused for reasons of lack of competence or other commitments, they had to be replaced on 30 May, 5 June, 11 July and 5 September 1997. 19.  On 5 November 1997 the District Court ordered the expert who was eventually appointed to submit her opinion as soon as possible and warned her that in the event of non-compliance she would be fined. On 9 December 1997 the court imposed a fine of HUF 25,000 on the expert. Despite warnings, the expert repeatedly failed to comply with the order and the court imposed another fine of HUF 50,000 on her. 20.  On 14 July 1998 a newly appointed expert submitted an opinion in reply to the court’s questions as to the value, before the accident, of the plaintiff’s livestock, the income which the plaintiff could have expected from his livestock and the number of workers and the working hours required for tending to it. 21.  The next hearing took place on 21 October 1998. The plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing and his counsel’s replacement was not prepared to make a statement in the case. 22.  Meanwhile, on the defendant’s appeal, on 25 January 1999 the Budapest Regional Court upheld an order of 27 August 1997 concerning the agricultural expert’s fee. A hearing scheduled for 27 January 1999 had to be postponed as the case-file had not yet been returned by the District Court. 23.  In order to reconcile different medical opinions, the District Court ordered the medical expert to complete his opinion. The opinion submitted on 5 May 1999 was further supplemented on 7 July 1999 in view of the defendant’s observations. 24.  Further hearings took place on 27 September and 18 October 1999. On the latter occasion both the plaintiff and his representative failed to appear or to request that the hearing be held in their absence. Therefore, the District Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings. On 29 October 1999 the proceedings were reinstated at the plaintiff’s request. 25.  On 8 December 1999, 13 March, 17 April and 15 May 2000 the District Court heard further witnesses. 26.  On 21 May 2000 the plaintiff died. As the District Court had not been informed of this, it delivered its judgment on 22 May 2000. The judgment did not take effect. On 3 July 2000 the District Court ordered a stay of the proceedings. 27.  On 14 August 2000 the applicant was declared his father’s sole heir. On 6 September 2000 he joined the proceedings before the District Court as his late father’s successor. 28.  The parties failed to appear at the hearings held on 13 September, and 2 and 30 October 2000. On the latter date the District Court decided to award HUF 7,257,275 plus accrued interest to the applicant. 29.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 17 April and 26 June 2001 in the applicant’s absence. In a judgment of the latter date, it amended part of the first instance decision and lowered the award to HUF 5,507,485.