5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Split. 6.  On 5 June 1992 the Customs Office Sežana in customs offence proceedings seized a large amount of gold belonging to the applicant and his car. 7.  On 5 July 1996 the customs offence proceedings were discontinued and the seized property was returned to the applicant on 12 September 1997. 8.  On 17 November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State claiming pecuniary losses sustained due to the seizure with the Koper District Court. 9.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant requested the court to expedite the proceedings. 10.  On 1 April 1999 the Koper District Court issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. 11.  On 7 March 2000 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 12.  On 30 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. 13.  On 8 April 2004 the Constitutional Court quashed the decisions of the lower instances in the part concerning pecuniary damages in respect of the car and remitted that part of the case back to the first instance court. 14.  On 1 September 2004 the Koper District Court held the first main hearing after the remittal. At the hearing the applicant’s representative informed the court of his intention to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights and requested the district court to postpone the hearing until the Court would decide on his application. The district court followed the applicant’s representative’s motion and adjourned the proceedings. 15.  In August 2006 the Koper District Court scheduled a hearing for 27 September 2006. After the applicant’s representative had received the summons to the hearing, he requested the hearing to be postponed since the Court had not yet decided on his application. The district court dismissed the applicant’s motion. 16.  At the hearing held on 27 September 2006 the applicant again requested that the hearing be postponed pending the outcome of his application with the Court. The district court dismissed the request. Since the applicant modified his claim at the hearing and submitted further evidence the court adjourned the hearing in order to enable the defendant to respond to the modification and the new evidence. 17.  On 3 November 2006 the court held a further hearing and issued its decision. Both parties appealed. 18.  On 18 September 2007 the Koper Higher Court granted the appeals and remitted the case back to the first instance. 19.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Koper District Court due to the length of the proceedings. 20.  On the same day, 12 February 2008, the Koper District Court held a hearing and issued its decision. The applicant appealed. 21.  On 26 February 2008 the Koper District Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory appeal as unfounded, since in the meantime the court had issued its decision in the case and therefore no acceleratory measures could be taken by the court. 22.  On 18 June 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeal. After several unsuccessful attempts of service the decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 December 2008. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. 23.  On 17 September 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 24.  On 14 December 2009 the applicant lodged an application for settlement with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings with the State Attorney’s Office. 25.  On 6 January 2009 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the applicant’s claim due to the fact that his supervisory appeal had been dismissed and the applicant should have therefore also lodged a motion for a deadline. 26.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant, relying on the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), lodged a claim with the Koper Local Court seeking compensation in the amount of 5,800 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings. 27.  On 13 February 2012 the Koper Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the applicant should have lodged a motion for a deadline after his supervisory appeal had been rejected. 28.  On an unknown date the applicant appealed. In his appeal he stressed that he had no reason to lodge a motion for a deadline since the court had in the meantime issued its decision and his motion for a deadline would in any case be rejected for lack of legal interest. 29.  On 17 January 2013 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that it was irrelevant whether the applicant had any prospects of succeeding with the motion for a deadline, as the 2006 Act did not require that a party would succeed with the legal remedy but solely that he or she had lodged it. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 12 February 2013.