4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kaunas. 5.  On 28 November 1995 the applicant brought a civil action, requesting annulment of a number of agreements concluded in 1987 whereby ZD, a third person, had acquired a house and certain other items of real property. The applicant alleged in particular that he had been the actual buyer, and that ZD had only acted in a formal capacity. Six other persons were defendants in the proceedings. 6.  ZD lodged a counter-claim. 7.  Given certain evidence that in the past the applicant had suffered from schizophrenia, on 30 April 1997 the court ordered a psychiatric expertise in order to establish whether the applicant was capable of participating in the court proceedings due to his state of mental health. 8.  On 15 September 1997 the State Legal Psychiatry Service informed the court that the applicant had failed to appear before it for the expertise to be conducted. The expertise was carried out on 14 October 1997. 9.  On 23 December 1997 the Pasvalys District Court dismissed the applicant’s case as unsubstantiated. 10.  On 20 May 1998 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the decision, returning the case for examination de novo. It was established that the first-instance court had failed to examine certain claims of the parties. 11.  On 1 February 1999 the Kėdainiai District Court again dismissed the applicant’s case. 12.  The applicant appealed. He also requested the Kėdainiai District Court to exempt him from the obligation to pay stamp duty. On 17 February 1999 that court allowed his request. 13.  On 9 March 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the ruling by which the applicant had been exempted from paying the stamp duty. 14.  On 25 May 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the merits and upheld the decision of 1 February 1999. 15.  On 10 February 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts on account of the fact that they had failed to establish all the relevant circumstances. The case was returned for a fresh examination at first instance. 16.  On 27 November 2000 the Kėdainiai District Court allowed the applicant’s action in full. 17.  On 16 January 2001 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the decision. 18.  On 20 June 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first instance court for a new examination. It was established that the lower courts had again failed to establish and assess all the relevant circumstances of the case, despite having been instructed to do so in the Supreme Court’s ruling of 10 February 2000. 19.  On 14 August 2002 the Panevėžys City District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. 20.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant appealed. However the Panevėžys City District Court decided to return the appeal to the applicant unexamined for failure to pay stamp duty. The applicant’s objection to the latter decision was dismissed on 1 October 2002. It was established that the applicant had been and still was a wealthy man, given that he owed numerous real estates. Consequently, there was no ground to exempt him from stamp duty. 21.  On 14 February 2003 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 August 2002. 22.  On 11 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.