4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. 5.  After the death of his father, the applicant inherited 38/100 of a house and the right to use the adjacent plot of land. 6.  On 14 May 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (Бабушкінський районний суд м. Дніпропетровська), “the Babushkinsky Court”, alleging that Mrs N., the co-owner of the house, perpetually abused her land use rights and seeking to divide the plot of land between them. 7.  On 22 August 1996 the court ordered an expert assessment to determine the manner in which to divide the plot and suspended the proceedings. On 6 May 1997 an expert report, containing several possible solutions, was delivered to the court. 8.  On 7 August 1997 the court ordered an additional expert assessment and in October 1997 suspended the proceedings pending its outcome. The following hearing in the case was scheduled for 23 June 1998. 9.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant amended his initial claims, additionally seeking recognition of his right to a part of the cellar and of the waste funnel. In April 1999 the court decided to disjoin the applicant’s new claims, however, eventually they were decided within the framework of the initial proceedings. 10.  On 13 April 1999 Judge R. replaced Judge M., who had been initially dealing with the applicant’s case, as the latter’s term of office had expired. The case was adjourned until 13 October 1999. 11.  On 27 December 2000 the court decided to divide the land according to one of the options proposed by the experts. The applicant appealed in cassation, alleging that that option was unsatisfactory. 12.  On 2 April 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (Дніпропетровський обласний суд), “the Regional Court”,[1] quashed the judgment of 27 December 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 13.  On 29 January 2003 the court discontinued proceedings in the case on the ground that the parties had failed to use the non-judicial means of settlement of their dispute. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 15 April 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 January 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 15.  On 24 December 2003 the court divided the land according to another option suggested by the experts and dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning the waste funnel and the cellar as lodged outside the statute of limitation. The defendant appealed. 16.  On 1 April 2004 the Regional Court rejected the defendant’s appeal and the judgment of 24 December 2003 became enforceable. 17.  After the expiration of the statutory period for lodging cassation appeal, when the judgment in the case had become final, Ms K., who had acquired the house from the defendant, unsuccessfully sought renewal of the time-limit for lodging cassation appeal. The last decision concerning this request was taken on 10 September 2004. 18.  Between September 1997 and 24 December 2003 the trial court scheduled the total of some twenty-seven hearings with intervals from three weeks to ten months. Some sixteen of these hearings were adjourned, ten adjournments being attributable to the defendant’s absences. 19.  In May 2004, following the applicant’s request, the bailiffs’ service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 December 2003. In November 2005 the applicant sold his part of the house and requested that the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. On 22 November 2005 this request was allowed. 20.  On 17 April 1998, in the course of the first set of proceedings, the applicant lodged with the Babushkinsky Court an additional claim, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for Mrs N.’s abuses of her land use right. On 19 December 2000 the court decided to consider this claim separately from the initial set of proceedings. 21.  On 11 July 2001 the court discontinued proceedings in the case due to the parties’ failure to appear. 22.  On 28 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 11 July 2001, referring to the failure of the Babushkinsky Court to notify him about the date of the hearing. 23.  On 6 March 2002 the Babushkinsky Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal on the ground that the latter had been lodged out of time. The applicant appealed, alleging that he had missed the time-limit because the Babushkinsky Court had failed to notify him about the decision of 11 July 2001 in good time. 24.  On 29 April 2002 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 6 March 2002 and remitted the question of the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal for a fresh consideration. 25.  On 31 May 2002 the Babushkinsky Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal for essentially the same reasons as stated in its decision of 6 March 2002. 26.  On 10 October 2002 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 31 May 2002 and remitted the applicant’s appeal for a decision on its admissibility. 27.  On 13 November 2002 the Babushkinsky Court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the decision of 11 July 2001. 28.  On 20 January 2003 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11 July 2001 as being unsubstantiated. 29.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and quashed the decisions of 11 July 2001 and 20 January 2003. It held that there was no evidence that the parties had been duly informed about the hearing on 11 July 2001. The Supreme Court remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the merits. 30.  In November 2005 the applicant withdrew his claim for compensation. On 18 November 2005 the Babushkinsky Court terminated the proceedings. 31.  According to the case-file materials, in the course of the proceedings the trial court scheduled at most eight hearings. None of them was attended by the defendant.