5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 8 April 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident, I.R., had taken out insurance with the insurance company A. 7.  On 18 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against I.R. and the insurance company A. in the Celje District Court, seeking damages in the amount of 3,688,433 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 15,370 euros) (EUR) for the injuries sustained. 8.  Between 29 November 2001 and 12 May 2006 the applicant lodged several written submissions and adduced evidence. 9.  Between 15 December 2003 and 4 September 2006 the court held eight hearings, one of which was conducted at the site of the accident. It does not appear that any of the hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s fault. 10.  During the proceedings, the court also appointed two experts and requested an additional opinion from one of them. 11. After the last hearing in the case, the court delivered an interim judgment (vmesna sodba) determining the responsibility for the damage, which was served on the applicant on 25 September 2006. 12.  On 9 October 2006 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. I.R. and the insurance company A also appealed. 13.  On 9 May 2007 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and changed the first-instance court’s interim judgment. It found I.R. and the insurance company A responsible for 70% of the damage suffered due to the accident. 14.  The judgment was served on the applicant on 18 May 2007. 15.  On 13 June 2007 the insurance company A lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. These proceedings are still pending. 16.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court. In this supervisory appeal the applicant explained that the proceedings had started on 18 October 1999 and were still pending. As a consequence, his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated. He requested that the proceedings be expedited and the decision be delivered immediately. 17.  On 23 March 2007, referring to sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), the President of the Celje District Court replied to the supervisory appeal by explaining that the case file had been transferred to the Celje Higher Court on 20 March 2007.