4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Plovdiv. 5.  On 23 July 1984 the applicant and his wife divorced.  Thereafter, the applicant's former wife issued proceedings against him, requesting the partition of their common property, which included a flat, a garage, a car, and several pieces of jewellery and numerous other chattels. 6.  In accordance with the relevant law, partition proceedings have two stages. During the first phase the court has to establish the co-owners, identify the items of common property which are to be partitioned and determine the share of each co‑owner. During the second phase the court effects the partition. 7.  The partition claim was submitted to the Plovdiv District Court in December 1984.  On 8 May 1985 its examination was stayed to await the outcome of a separate suit between the applicant and his former wife concerning their shares in their common property. Those proceedings ended in 1987 by final judgment establishing that the applicant's share was 9/16 of the joint marital property and his former wife's - 7/16. 8.  The partition proceedings resumed in March 1988.  The court held three hearings and gave judgment on 15 June 1988, allowing the partition of the flat, the car, the jewellery and the other chattels. The court determined the parties' shares as established in the 1985-1987 proceedings (see the preceding paragraph).  On 5 December 1988 the District Court rectified its judgment noting that the partition also concerned the garage. 9.  The applicant's former wife appealed. By judgment of 6 September 1988 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment in so far as it concerned several chattels.  On 30 January 1989 the applicant requested the reopening of the first phase of the partition proceedings. On 4 May 1989 the Supreme Court partially granted the request. It is unclear whether the Regional Court eventually examined the remitted part of the matter, which concerned the partition of an iron, an alarm clock, four blankets, two bed sheets, two pillows and three cotton curtains. 10. Without awaiting the outcome of the appeals that concerned the first phase of the partition proceedings, the Plovdiv District Court commenced their second phase. Between October 1988 and April 1991 the Plovdiv District Court held nine hearings. Several adjournments were caused by defective summonses. 11.  In a judgment of 22 April 1991 the Plovdiv District Court allotted the flat, part of the jewellery and of the other chattels to the applicant and allotted the car, the garage and the rest of the jewellery and the chattels to the applicant's former wife. Each party was ordered to make payments to the other in respect of levelling away differences in their shares and also for improvements and expenses. 12.  On 24 May 1991 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Plovdiv Regional Court. He challenged the evaluation of the flat and the jewellery and the amounts he and his former wife had been ordered to pay to each other. The court delivered its judgment on 10 December 1991. It granted the appeal partly, reducing the amount owed by the applicant. 13.  Upon the applicant's petition for review, on 31 December 1992 the Supreme Court quashed parts of the lower courts' judgments and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 14.  The case was transmitted to the Plovdiv District Court.  On 4 March 1993 the applicant sought to bring in the same proceedings claims for damages against his former wife. On 15 May 1993 the District Court, sitting in private, refused to accept them for examination. The applicant's ensuing appeal was dismissed by the Plovdiv Regional Court on 6 October 1993. 15. On 4 May 1993, the Plovdiv District Court appointed an expert for the evaluation of the flat and adjourned the hearing until 17 August 1993. 16.  On 3 December 1993 the applicant requested the withdrawal of the judge by a letter containing offensive remarks and gratuitous accusations against judges and staff of the District Court. Between 13 and 20 December 1993 all judges of the Plovdiv District Court withdrew, apparently in reaction to the applicant's improper behaviour. 17.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicant submitted to the Supreme Court a request for rectification of its judgment of 31 December 1992 (see paragraph 13 above) pointing to the fact that the Supreme Court had not specified the name of the court to which the case was to be remitted for fresh examination. 18.  On 7 June 1994 the Supreme Court supplemented its judgment of 31 December 1992. It held that the case should be referred for a fresh examination to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 19.  The second phase of the partition proceedings thus resumed before the Plovdiv Regional Court, which held a hearing in October 1994. The court admitted written evidence and appointed an expert. 20.  On 10 January 1995 the applicant's former wife died. On 17 April 1995 the court, sitting in private, held that her daughter (who was also the applicant's daughter), should become party to the proceedings. 21.  A hearing took place on 8 May 1995, at which the Regional Court appointed new experts. 22.  Between 1995 and 2000, the Regional Court listed numerous hearings which were adjourned. Three adjournments causing delay of several months were ordered as a court-appointed expert had failed to appear. Another delay of several months was caused by the fact that judges to whom the case had been assigned in 1997 had previously dealt with the matter as District Court judges. The judges concerned had not noted this problem of incompatibility prior to the date of the respective hearing and ordered adjournments to allow the re-allocation of the case to other judges. 23.  All other adjournments during the period 1995-2000 were the result of the authorities' failure to secure proper service of summons on the applicant's daughter. 24.  Following several such adjournments, on 23 October 1996 the Regional Court ordered an inquiry into the reasons for the defective summoning. As the problem persisted, on 6 March 1998 the Regional Court ordered the mayor of Bankya, where the applicant's daughter resided, to explain why the summons had not been served.  On 13 September 1998 the mayor replied that summonses for residents of Bankya had to be processed through the Sofia municipality. The mayor also stated that the applicant's daughter had been notified but had not turned up to receive the summons. 25.  As the summons sent kept returning not served, the court ordered the summons to be served on the lawyer of the applicant's daughter but in September 1998 he informed the court that he did not represent her. Following several additional adjournments caused by the same problem, on 26 January 2000 the court imposed a fine on the mayor of Bankya for having failed to ensure the serving of summonses. 26.  On 28 October 1999 the applicant submitted a complaint against the delays in the proceedings under Article 217a of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is unclear whether the request was examined. 27.  On 28 March 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court received a letter by the Sofia Municipality – Region Bankya, stating that the applicant's daughter did not reside at the address she had given. The court concluded that she had failed to notify it of a change of address and considered her to be henceforth duly summoned, which allowed the continuation of the proceedings. 28.  A hearing was held on 11 May 2000. An expert failed to show up. The court admitted written evidence adduced by the applicant. The next hearing was listed for 12 October 2000 in order to allow the applicant's daughter to get acquainted with the new evidence. The court also ordered the expert to appear at the next hearing on pain of being fined. 29.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant requested the Plovdiv Regional Court to schedule the hearing for an earlier date. On 25 May 2000 the court refused, holding that pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the case did not call for an expedited examination.  The last hearing was held on 12 October 2000. 30.  The Plovdiv Regional Court gave judgment on 5 January 2001. The court determined that the value of the various objects to be partitioned and ordered the applicant to pay a sum of money to his daughter. Since the court relied on the objects' value as of 22 April 1991, the date of their allotment to the parties, since when high inflation and the depreciation of the Bulgarian currency had devalued pecuniary claims, the applicant was ordered to pay 43 new Bulgarian levs (“BGN”) (the equivalent of approximately EUR 24). 31.  On 1 February 2001 the applicant lodged a petition for review (cassation) with the Supreme Court of Cassation. He challenged in essence the value of the flat and the jewellery as determined by the Plovdiv Regional Court. 32.  A hearing scheduled for 15 October 2001 failed to take place because the parties had not been duly summoned.  The court held a hearing on 18 February 2002. 33.  In a final judgment of 1 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation, sitting as a three-member panel, reversed the Plovdiv Regional Court's judgment in part, allowing the applicant a longer time-limit – one year – for the payment of BGN 43 to his daughter. The remainder of the judgment was upheld. 34.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings, arguing that several persons had committed criminal offences in relation to the examination of the case.  In a judgment of 5 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation, sitting as a five-member panel, refused to reopen the proceeding.