5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Van. 6.  On 16 January 1993 the applicant was injured while he was working on the construction site of a hotel. 7.  On 18 May 1994 the principal public prosecutor at the Marmaris Criminal Court of First Instance (“criminal court”) filed a bill of indictment against A. B. and A. T., the owner-builder and the master-builder. 8.  On 28 June 1995 the applicant submitted a petition to the criminal court and requested to intervene in the proceedings as an intervening complainant. The criminal court accepted his request. 9.  On 11 March 1996 and 25 November 1996 the experts who were assigned by the criminal court submitted their reports. In their reports they stated that A.B. and E.C. were respectively by 25% and 75% responsible for the accident. 10.  Between 25 November 1996 and 25 May 1999 the criminal court examined the documents submitted by various authorities. 11.  On 25 May 1999 the criminal court convicted the owner-builder and the master-builder, under Article 459 § 2 of the Criminal Code, for having failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the accident which had resulted in injuries to the applicant. The criminal court sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment which was converted to a fine. Thus, E.T. became liable to a fine of 375,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 1 euro (EUR)) and A.B. to a fine of TRL 123,333 (approximately EUR 0, 28). The judgment became final on 6 July 1999. 12.  On 12 April 1995 the applicant brought an action for damages against the construction company in the Marmaris Civil Court of First Instance (“first-instance court”). 13.  On 21 November 1995 the applicant requested the first-instance court to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the owner‑builder and the master-builder, pending before the criminal court. The court requested the case-file in the criminal proceedings. 14.  On 8 October 1996 the first-instance court decided to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 15.  On 26 February 1998 the applicant brought a further action for damages in the first-instance court against the construction company and the hotel in which the construction was taking place. 16.  On an unspecified date, the first-instance court joined the two cases. 17.  Meanwhile, by a judgment which became final on 6 July 1999, the criminal court convicted the owner‑builder and the master-builder (see paragraph 11 above). 18.  Between 12 April 1995 and 18 October 2001 the first-instance court held twenty‑four hearings. During this period, the court requested medical reports on the applicant and documents from various administrative authorities. The court examined the expert reports and heard two witnesses. 19.  On 18 October 2001 the first-instance court awarded the applicant a certain sum in damages. 20.  On 27 December 2001 the defendant party appealed to the Court of Cassation against the first-instance court’s decision. 21.  On 5 November 2002 the 21st Chamber of the Court of Cassation decided to send the case-file to the 13th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, holding that the latter had jurisdiction over the case. 22.  On 25 March 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s decision and held that the case should be dealt with by the labour courts. 23.  On 14 October 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the defendant party’s request for rectification. 24.  On 20 January 2004 the first-instance court, acting in its capacity as a Labour Court, abided by the Court of Cassation’s decision and awarded the applicant a sum in damages plus interest at the statutory rate. 25.  On 26 January 2004 the defendant party appealed to the Court of Cassation. 26.  On 20 May 2004 the defendant party’s appeal was dismissed since they had failed to pay the postal fees.