4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dzerzhynsk. 5.  On an unspecified date in April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Company “Dzerzhynskvugillia” (“the company”, Державне Підприємство «Дзержинськвугілля»). In particular, he claimed damages for a discrepancy in the calculations of compensation for a professional illness. On 5 April 1999 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (“the City Court”) opened proceedings on the applicant’s claim. 6.  On 6 December 1999 the City Court warned the company of a penalty for its failures to appear before the court. 7.  On 15 January 2002 the applicant lodged a new claim with the City Court against the company seeking indexation of his salary. 8.  Having been joined on 2 December 2002, the claims were dismissed by the City Court on 1 July 2004. 9.  In the meantime, the applicant had modified his claims four times and the Dzerzhynsk City Department of the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases joined the proceedings as a second defendant. Between 7 February 2000 and 30 May 2002, the Court of Appeal quashed four first-instance judgments and ordered fresh hearings. 10.  On 10 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 1 July 2004 in part related to the compensation of a professional illness. The court, out of UAH 6,028 (EUR 844[1]) claimed by the applicant for pecuniary and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,000) for non-pecuniary damage, awarded the applicant UAH 177 (EUR 25). The applicant appealed in cassation. 11.  On 4 June 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transmitted the applicant’s appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal which, on 9 October 2007, finally upheld the decisions of 1 July 2004 and 10 February 2005. 12.  In the course of the proceedings, two expert examinations were ordered and a number of procedural rulings were adopted. During the same period of time, the applicant filed nine procedural requests and eleven appeals, two of which did not meet procedural requirements. 13.  According to the Government, of the seventy one hearings scheduled between 5 April 1999 and 9 October 2007, nineteen were adjourned due to the company representative’s failure to attend, eleven were adjourned at request of one or both defendants, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s sickness or absence, one was adjourned due to both parties’ failure to attend, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond the parties’ control.