4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in St Petersburg. 5.  In 1987 the applicant inherited one half of a house in Leningrad (now St Petersburg) from his mother. 6.  In 1989 the City Council decided to build new apartment buildings in the area where the applicant’s house was situated. It also decided that the houses affected by the construction plan would be demolished and their inhabitants resettled. 7.  Between 1992 and 1996 construction work was carried out on the land by private companies commissioned by the City Council. Different underground pipelines were installed. During the construction work the applicant and his family continued to live in their house. The applicant alleges that as a result of the construction work his garden was destroyed and that the largest part of the plot became unfit for garden purposes. 8.  On 26 January 1996 the applicant acquired the title to the plot of land surrounding his house. 9.  On 22 September 1997 the applicant brought a court action against the Administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg and private companies which had carried out the construction work. He requested the court to declare that the construction work carried out on the plot of land had resulted in de facto expropriation of part of his land and to award him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The case was assigned to judge S. 10.  In 1998 and 1999 the case was adjourned several times. In particular, between 10 June and 24 November 1998 no hearings were scheduled because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. Several hearings were adjourned either because the defendants and third parties failed to appear or because the applicant amended his claims. 11.  In 2000 and 2001 the case was adjourned several times. In particular, between 17 February and 26 April 2000 the proceedings were suspended pending an expert study. Between 24 August 2000 and 15 March 2001 and between 21 June and 10 August 2001 the case was adjourned because the judge was on sick leave. One hearing did not take place because the defendants failed to appear. 12.  On 13 August 2001 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the applicant’s claims for compensation of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage in part and dismissed the remainder of his claims. 13.  On 18 July 2002 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) held that the first-instance court had failed to properly establish important circumstances of the case and to duly assess the evidence. It quashed the judgment of 13 August 2001 in so far as it awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. It upheld the remaining part of the judgment. 14.  On 16 August 2002 the case was reassigned to judge K., who set the examination of the case down for 16 January 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 20 March 2003, because the applicant intended to submit additional evidence to the court. 15.  On 4 March 2003 the case was reassigned to judge A. and was scheduled for 22 May 2003. On that date the hearing was postponed until 29 September 2003, at the applicant’s request, so that he could undergo a medical examination. 16.  Between September 2003 and November 2004 the case was adjourned several times because the applicant amended his claims and the defendants had to study his new claims, the court requested additional evidence from the parties and the applicant needed time to prepare questions to experts. Between 29 April and 8 October 2004 the case was adjourned because the applicant’s representative failed to appear. The applicant submitted that he did not ask for those adjournments and requested the District Court to continue the examination of the case. 17.  Between 15 February 2005 and 14 March 2006 the proceedings were suspended pending another expert study which had to establish the impact of the construction work on the state of health of the applicant and his daughters. 18.  Between March and September 2006 several hearings were adjourned in order to call experts and the applicant’s daughter to the hearing. Some hearings were postponed to give the applicant’s daughter time to prepare her claims, but also because the applicant amended his claims and the defendant needed time to study them. One hearing did not take place because the defendants did not appear. 19.  On 21 September 2006 the Primorskiy District Court, after a fresh examination, dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. On 7 December 2006 the City Court upheld that judgment. 20.  According to the applicant, on several occasions he intended to repair his house. At his request the authorities replied that his house was still subject to demolition in the near future and that his family would be provided with a flat. The applicant had to abandon his plan to repair the house. The applicant also submitted that he had to decline an offer for the purchase of his house, because it was scheduled for demolition. Also, prospective buyers of his plot of land withdrew after consulting the city authorities. The applicant did not bring any court proceedings in respect of the alleged prohibitions on the repair of the house and on the sale of the plot of land. 21.  In 1999 the Governor of St Petersburg annulled the decision to resettle the inhabitants of the houses affected by the construction plan. It was by then considered unlikely that the City would need to acquire these properties in order to implement its new town plan. The applicant sued the Governor and claimed compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. By a final decision of 3 July 2001 the City Court dismissed his claims. 22.  The applicant also sued the City and District administrations for their failure to provide him with a flat. By a final decision of 18 October 2001 the City Court dismissed his claims.