4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Prague. 5.  The applicant’s grandmother owned a house and plot of land in Městec Králové, which the State seized in 1960 and returned to her in 1969. On 15 October 1970 she signed an agreement to sell the property to the Městec Králové Centre for Agricultural Apprenticeship (Střední odborné učiliště zemědělské), a State institute, and was paid CZK 123,233.35 (EUR 4,355). Subsequently, part of the property was transferred to the Consumer Cooperative (spotřební družstvo) and the Městec Králové Municipal Office (městský úřad).
i. Restitution proceedings under the Land Ownership Act 6.  On 10 October 1991 the applicant requested the owners of the property under the Land Ownership Act to return the property to him, arguing that his grandmother had signed the sale agreement under duress and conspicuously disadvantageous conditions. Upon their refusal, on 4 December 1992 he requested the Nymburk Land Office (pozemkový úřad) to restore the property to him. His request was notified to the Land Office on 7 December 1992. 7.  On 7 January 1993 the Land Office invited the applicant to submit certain relevant documents. At the same time, it interrupted the administrative proceedings until the administrative file would be complete. 8. On 13 and 30 August 1993 respectively, the applicant presented the requested documents. On 26 June 1994 he identified the plot of land. 9.  On 7 September 1994 an inspection of the site was carried out. On 15 September 1994 the Land Office requested the Ministry of Environment to provide access to their archives in order to find a purchase contract of 1970. On 29 September 1994 the Municipal Office, upon the Land Office’s request of 19 September 1994, submitted some additional documents. On the same day and on 17 October 1994 the applicant also added some documents. 10.  On 23 November 1994 the Land Office ordered an expert opinion, which was drawn up on 14 January 1995. 11.  On 25 January 1995 the applicant, at the Land Office’s request of 13 January 1995, clarified his relations with other members of his family. 12.  On 31 January 1995 the Land Office dismissed the applicant’s request, stating that, while it was uncertain whether his grandmother had acted under duress, she had not sold the property under conspicuously disadvantageous conditions. 13.  On 28 February 1995 the applicant appealed. 14.  On 14 April and 5 June 1995 respectively, the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) invited the applicant’s representative to clarify his client’s appeal. On 1 June and 3 July 1995 respectively, he complied. 15.  The applicant’s appeal was then sent to the other parties to the proceedings, who submitted their observations in August 1995. 16.  In a judgment of 29 September 1995, the Municipal Court quashed the Land Office’s decision and returned the case to it for further establishment of the facts. 17.  On 29 November 1995 the Municipal Office interviewed witnesses in accordance with the Municipal Court’s opinion expressed in its judgment. An inspection of the site was carried out. 18.  On 8 December 1995 and 31 January 1996 respectively, the applicant lodged supplementary documents. 19.  On 21 February 1996 the Land Office again dismissed the applicant’s request for the restitution of the property. 20.  On 6 March 1996 the applicant appealed, supplementing his appeal on 6 May 1996. On 8 July 1996 the Land Office presented its comments. 21.  The defendant’s observations were submitted on 12 March 1997. Its legal representative lodged some additional documents. 22.  In a judgment of 16 May 1997, the Municipal Court upheld the Land Office’s decision. 23.  On 21 August 1997 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost), supplementing it on 25 September 1997 upon the Constitutional Court’s (Ústavní soud) request of 2 September 1997. He complained that he had not been duly invited to the hearing held before the Municipal Court on 16 May 1997, and that the latter had decided in his absence. 24.  On 10 October 1997 the Constitutional Court invited the parties to the proceedings to present their observations, which they did at the end of October 1997. 25.  On 20 January 1998 the applicant, in reply to the court’s request of 13 January 1998, expressed his wish to hold a public hearing. 26.  On 9 June 1998 the Constitutional Court, having held two hearings on 25 February and 9 June 1998, granted the applicant’s constitutional appeal, quashing the Municipal Court’s judgment. 27.  On 30 July 1998 the case file was sent to the Municipal Court. 28.  On 6 August and 7 October 1998 the applicant supplemented his original appeal. The other parties to the proceedings submitted their comments on the applicant’s appeal in December 1998. 29.  By a judgment of 2 February 1999, the Municipal Court again upheld the Land Office’s decision. 30.  On 14 June 1999 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal. In July and August 1999 the Constitutional Court requested that the files of the Municipal Court and Land Office be sent to it. 31.  In December 1999 a judge rapporteur, to whom the applicant’s case had been assigned, resigned from her office. Another judge rapporteur was appointed in April 2000. 32.  On 9 February 2001 the latter invited the parties to the proceedings to submit their observations on the applicant’s constitutional appeal. 33.  On 30 April and 9 May 2001 respectively, the applicant without being represented by a lawyer, suggested that a case file concerning his restitution action dealt with the Nymburk District Court (okresní soud) be produced in evidence. 34.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant, again without his lawyer’s knowledge, challenged the judge rapporteur for bias. On 16 August 2001 the applicant’s lawyer, in reply to the Constitutional Court’s letter of 8 August 2001, informed the court that he did not see any reason to challenge the judge rapporteur for bias. On 29 August 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge. 35.  On 18 September 2001 it dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
ii. Restitution proceedings under the Extra-judicial Rehabilitation Act 36.  On 10 October 1991 the applicant requested the Centre for Agricultural Apprenticeship to return the property to him, pursuant to the Extra-judicial Rehabilitation Act. After its refusal, he requested the Nymburk District Court on 18 March 1992 to restore the property to him. On 24 March 1992 the court invited the applicant to remedy shortcomings in his submissions. He complied on 7 April 1992. 37.  On 13 May 1992 the defendant submitted its comments. 38.  On 18 September 1992 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned sine die in order to examine documentary evidence, hear witnesses and verify the existence of an expert opinion. 39.  On 20 September 1994 the Land Office informed the court about the restitution proceedings which the applicant had initiated under the Land Ownership Act. 40.  On 8 February 1996 the court requested the Land Office to submit the administrative file. On 2 May 1996 the Land Office informed the court about the state of the administrative proceedings and explained that the administrative file was unavailable, having been sent to the Municipal Court. 41.  On 15 July 1996 the applicant informed the District Court, upon its inquiry of 4 July 1996, that he insisted on the continuation of the proceedings despite his simultaneous restitution request dealt with by the Land Office. On 23 December 1996 the Land Office, in reply to the District Court’s request of 29 November 1996, informed the court that the restitution proceedings under the Land Ownership Act were still pending before the Municipal Court. 42.  On 20 June and 31 July 1997 respectively, the applicant submitted his own analysis of the case. 43.  On 29 July 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that it lacked competence to deal with the case. 44.  In a decision of 6 November 1997, the Prague Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 19 August 1997, quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case for further consideration. 45.  In a letter of 16 March 1998, the applicant informed the District Court that he had changed his legal representative. 46.  On 8 April 1998 the applicant’s case was assigned to another judge at the District Court. 47.  On 9 April 1998 the case file was sent to the Constitutional Court, which returned it on 31 July 1998. 48.  In the meantime, on 22 June 1998, the applicant had lodged a new power of attorney. 49.  On 23 October 1998 the District Court invited the applicant’s lawyer to submit certain new documents and to clarify his client’s action. On 27 October 1998 the lawyer requested the court to suspend the proceedings, explaining that the Municipal Court’s judgment of 16 May 1997 had been quashed by the Constitutional Court and that all the relevant documents were in the administrative file which was in the hands of the Municipal Court. On 17 November 1998 the applicant’s representative supplemented the merits of his client’s action. On 2 December 1998 the document was sent to the defendant’s lawyer. 50.  On 4 December 1998 the District Court suspended the proceedings. The decision became final on 6 January 1999. 51.  On 18 February, 3 August and 15 December 2000 and 28 February 2001, it made inquiries about the state of the restitution proceedings under the Land Ownership Act. 52.  On 20 June 2001 the case file was again sent to the Constitutional Court, which returned it on 27 September 2001. 53.  On 1 October 2001 the applicant’s lawyer informed the District Court that the proceedings under the Land Ownership Act had been terminated by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 18 September 2001 and that, therefore, the present restitution proceedings could continue. The District Court agreed to this on 6 February 2002. This decision became final on 22 March 2002. In the meantime, on 22 November 2001, the court had requested the Land Office and Municipal Court to send their case files to it. 54.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant changed his legal representative. On 12 July 2002 the defendant submitted its opinion on the applicant’s action. 55.  On 23 July 2002 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned until 26 September 2002. Another hearing due to be held on 28 November 2002 was adjourned until 9 January 2003 because of the judge’s illness. 56.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant adduced further documents in evidence. On 21 February 2003 the defendant made its comments. On 17 March 2003 the applicant replied. 57.  On 28 March 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings for lack of competence, and referred the case to the Land Office. On 19 August 2003 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 20 May 2003, upheld this decision. 58.  On 25 February 2004 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law of 10 November 2003, holding that the conclusions of the lower courts had been in accordance with domestic law. On 24 May 2004 the case was sent to the Land Office. 59.  On 5 October 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal of 21 May 2004. It held, inter alia, that the case was de facto over, the restitution proceedings under the Land Ownership Act, which concerned the same property, having been terminated upon the final decision of the Land Office.