4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Narva. 5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  On 19 October 1999 AS Eesti Maapank, a public limited company, lodged a claim for nearly four million kroons (EEK – corresponding approximately to 255,000 euros (EUR)) against the applicant with the Narva City Court (linnakohus). The claim concerned an alleged loan the applicant had failed to pay back. 7.  On 14 December 2000 AS Eesti Maapank applied for interlocutory measures. On 15 December 2000 the City Court granted the plaintiff’s request and attached the applicant’s property (four properties and four vehicles). The parties did not appeal against the decision. 8.  However, on 2 January 2001 the applicant requested the City Court to revoke the attachment in respect of one house because it had already been mortgaged to a bank. On 19 January 2001 the City Court revoked the attachment in so far as requested. 9.  On 23 October 2001 the Viru Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus), on an appeal by the plaintiff, quashed the partial revocation of the attachment as it had been done without a valid legal ground. 10.  On 27 February 2003 the plaintiff requested the City Court to speed up the proceedings. 11.  In a letter of 27 October 2003 the City Court explained to the parties that in order to speed up the proceedings it was possible, by mutual agreement between the parties, to transfer jurisdiction to a different court. The court received no reply from the parties. 12.  In the applicant’s submission, he had been ready, at some stage of the proceedings, to transfer jurisdiction so that the Tallinn City Court would have tried the case. However, the plaintiff had not agreed. 13.  On 12 July 2004 the Narva City Court transmitted the statement of claims to the applicant for comment. On 6 August 2004 the applicant informed the court that he did not acknowledge the claim. 14.  By a decision of 1 April 2005 the City Court replaced AS Eesti Maapank as plaintiff by OÜ Trenton Invest, a private limited company, since the latter had agreed to take over the claim against the applicant. 15.  On 18 May 2005 a preliminary hearing before the City Court took place. The court adjourned the hearing in order that the plaintiff could submit originals of certain documents and that an expert opinion could be obtained in respect of the genuineness of the applicant’s signature on the documents. The plaintiff submitted the documents to the court on 25 May 2005. Subsequently, at the applicant’s request, the court required certain additional documents from the plaintiff, which the latter was unable to provide. 16.  In April 2006 the applicant became aware that the court had not sent the documents to an expert. 17.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant and OÜ Trenton Invest concluded a compromise agreement. The applicant undertook to pay a sum of EEK 450,000 (approximately EUR 29,000) to the plaintiff to settle the case. 18.  On 29 May 2006 the Viru County Court (maakohus) – the successor of the Narva City Court – approved the settlement. 19.  On 21 July 2006 the County Court annulled the interlocutory measure applied on 15 December 2000.