5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of 34,975 Euros by its former business partners. 7.  Following three remittals, the Commercial Court scheduled the next hearing for 13 September 2005 at 11 a.m. 8.  On the morning in question, the applicant's lawyer was on unrelated business at the Third Municipal Court (Treći opštinski sud) in Belgrade. The applicant maintains that at 10.30 a.m. his lawyer took a taxi in order to reach the Commercial Court as soon as possible. Some 700 meters before its destination, however, the taxi broke down and the applicant's lawyer had to continue on foot. He ultimately arrived in court at 11.04 p.m., just in time to see the judge finish the dictation of the minutes in the applicant's case to his secretary. One of the lawyers acting on behalf of the respondents was also present. 9.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant received the Commercial Court's decision (rešenje) dated 13 September 2005, wherein it was stated that neither party had duly appeared before the court, which is why the proceedings had to be terminated (see paragraph 18 below). 10.  On 19 September 2005 the applicant requested procedural reinstatement, i.e. restoration of proceedings to status quo ante (see paragraph 16 below). It explained why its lawyer had been late and proposed that the taxi driver, as well as the respondents' counsel, be heard. 11.  On 26 September 2005, in the absence of an oral hearing, the Commercial Court rejected the applicant's request (doneo rešenje kojim se odbija predlog), stating that procedural reinstatement could only be granted in a case of force majeure. Moreover, the applicant's lawyer should have acted with greater diligence and left the Third Municipal Court fifteen minutes earlier, which would even have allowed him, after the taxi broke down, to reach the Commercial Court on foot in time for the scheduled hearing. 12.  On 3 October 2005 and 7 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the Commercial Court's decisions of 13 September 2005 and 26 September 2005, respectively. 13.  On 19 December 2005 the High Commercial Court (Viši trgovinski sud), in the absence of an oral hearing, rejected both appeals. In so doing, it upheld the reasoning of the Commercial Court, added that the applicant had not provided relevant evidence to the effect that the taxi had indeed broken down, and noted that, in any event, “a vehicle defect could not be proved by means of witness testimony” but rather by documentary evidence such as repair receipts. 14.  The applicant received this decision on 26 January 2006. 15.  On 23 April 2009, in response to the Agent's request, Beotaxi, an association of taxi drivers, explained that, given the usual traffic congestion and the location, a replacement taxi would not have been a viable option for the applicant's lawyer. In any event, the Commercial Court was some 700 metres away, which is why it would have taken their client some 5-7 minutes on foot to reach his destination.