4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Braşov. 5.  On 25 March 1992 the applicant crushed three fingers of his left hand in an accident at work. He was taken to hospital, where he underwent a surgical intervention resulting in the amputation of two fingers. 6.  On 26 March 1992 an investigating commission was constituted within the private company where the applicant was working. After investigating the accident, the commission considered that the applicant was at fault because he had not observed the relevant safety rules. 7.  The applicant complained before the Braşov County Inspectorate for Labour Safety against the way in which the investigation had been carried out. On 15 April 1993 the Inspectorate concluded that the investigation had been in line with labour legislation. 8.  Beginning on 17 April 1992 the applicant lodged several criminal complaints with the Prosecutor's Office against the Inspectorate's conclusions, against the doctors and against his employer in respect of the causes of the accident. According to the documents in the file, until 1997, several public prosecutors refused or confirmed the refusal to initiate a criminal action, considering that the applicant was responsible for the accident and that he had accepted the surgical intervention. In a letter of 10 November 1997 addressed to the General Prosecutor, the applicant mentioned, inter alia, that he had given up struggling with the prosecutors and that he had brought a civil action. 9.  On 6 August 1997 the applicant brought civil proceedings against his employer, the County Public Health Agency, the County Department for Labour and Social Protection and the Ministry of Finance. He sought an order requiring the Public Health Agency to send him, at its expense, to a medical institution abroad with a view to the replacement of his two fingers. He further claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant alleged that the amputation of his two fingers had been due to the doctor's incompetence and that he had not consented to the surgical intervention. 10.  Of the twenty-five hearings held between 18 September 1997 and 14 May 1999, four were adjourned at the applicant's request because his lawyer was ill or in order to study the file previously drawn up by the public prosecutor. At ten other hearings, he asked if he could produce evidence in the proceedings. The court upheld the applicant's requests to hear witnesses and to produce documents as well as medico-legal and graphological expert reports, but also mentioned on two occasions that the defendants were not properly summoned. The defendants' statements were also made available.
Ten other hearings were adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the other parties in the proceedings. 11.  On 21 May 1999 the Braşov County Court dismissed the action, considering that the applicant had been exclusively at fault and, on the basis of the medico-legal expert report, that surgical intervention had been necessary and that the applicant had consented to it. The court also considered that a request by the applicant to hear some extra witnesses was pertinent but not conclusive because it was difficult to believe that witnesses might invalidate documents produced by specialised bodies. 12.  On 14 January 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, taking into consideration that, besides it being his fault, he had not lost his capacity to work and continued to work at the same company. 13.  The applicant lodged a further appeal, complaining of the court's refusal to admit the evidence he wished to adduce, including new medico-legal and graphological expert reports. Of the six hearings held, two were adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the defendants and two other for deliberations. The applicant expressly opposed the adjournment of the proceedings on one occasion. 14.  On 26 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld his appeal, quashed the previous judgments and sent the case to the Braşov Court of First Instance instructing it to take further evidence and provide a fresh examination. The court held that the lower courts had disregarded the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by rejecting the applicant's request to produce further evidence. Thus, it considered relevant the applicant's request to hear witnesses. 15.  During the retrial, of the twenty-two hearings held between 27 February 2002 and 8 December 2003 only three were adjourned at the applicant's request. At three other hearings, the court heard four witnesses proposed by the applicant, requested him to provide further information and allowed his requests for medico-legal and graphological expert reports. Then the court ordered a new adjournment so that the expert reports could be prepared. On 10 April 2002 the applicant made further submissions and on 19 June 2002 the hospital was joined in the proceedings. Two other hearings were adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the other parties in the proceedings.
At eight other hearings, the applicant lodged requests to challenge either individual judges, the whole section or all the courts in Braşov. Four of these requests were declared null and void for non-payment of the stamp duty, one was rejected for lack of reasoning and three as unfounded. In particular, on 5 September 2003, the court held that his request was made in bad faith and therefore imposed a fine on him on the grounds that he had challenged the judges several times and had used insulting words and inappropriate remarks against them. 16.  However, on 19 September 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld a request by the applicant to transfer the proceedings to the Ploieşti Court of First Instance for legitimate doubt as to judges' objective impartiality. On 1 October 2003 the Braşov Court of First Instance sent the case file to that court. 17.  On 15 December 2003 the Ploieşti Court of First Instance dismissed the action. It found, on the basis of expert reports, that the applicant had been exclusively at fault for the accident, that the graphological expert report confirmed the applicant's consent by signature to the surgical intervention and to its risks and that, in spite of his permanent infirmity, his capacity to work had not been diminished. It also held that the examination of the accident carried out by the investigating commission had been in accordance with the law. 18.  On 27 April 2004 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the applicant to be unfounded. It also held that, according to the Supreme Court's directions (see paragraph 14 above), it was not necessary to reassess the graphological or medico-legal expert reports. 19.  The applicant lodged a further appeal with the High Court of Cassation and Justice complaining that the lower court had dismissed his request to reassess the expert reports. On 28 July 2004 the High Court considered that, in line with new legal provisions regarding changes of venue, it was within the competence of the Court of Appeal to hear that appeal and it remitted it back to that court. 20.  On 15 November 2005 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by a final decision. It upheld the findings of the lower courts which had considered it unnecessary to reassess the expert reports and which had complied with the directions of the Supreme Court.