4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Duderstadt. 5.  On 25 May 1997 the applicant had a traffic accident and suffered severe injuries. He disagreed with the insurance companies involved about the seriousness of his permanent injuries and the amount of insurance benefits due. Three expert medical opinions concerning the degree of his invalidity produced differing results. The dispute resulted in three sets of court proceedings, only one of which is the subject of the present application. 6.  On 28 November 2001 the applicant brought a claim for 219,000 German marks (DEM, 111,972.92 euros (EUR)) plus interest before the Göttingen Regional Court. The claim was registered under file number 2 O 503/01. Prior to the institution of the proceedings he had already been paid DEM 231,000.00 (EUR 118,108.42) by the insurance company. 7.  On 15 May 2002 the court suggested a friendly settlement, which the parties did not accept. 8.  On 8 August 2002 a hearing was held. 9.  On 29 August 2002 the Regional Court ordered a comprehensive expert report regarding the degree of the applicant’s invalidity up to 25 May 2000. The expert was asked not to take into account any developments in the applicant’s health which occurred after that date. 10.  On 19 September 2002 the court sent the files to the appointed expert. 11.  On 16 October 2002 it received the expert’s observation that additional expert reports in the field of thoracic surgery, neurology and psychiatry were also necessary. He suggested two suitable experts. 12.  On 31 October 2002 both the applicant and the defendant consented to the two additional expert opinions and agreed with the proposed choice of experts. 13.  On 14 February 2003 the court received the additional opinion from the thoracic surgery expert, dated 30 January 2003. It informed the applicant but failed to inform the defendant. 14.  On 24 June and 16 September 2003 the applicant asked the court about the status of the proceedings and urged it to expedite the completion of the outstanding expert opinions. 15.  On 26 June and 20 November 2003 the court replied to him that the case files had been sent to an expert in the parallel proceedings. 16.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant asked the court to retrieve the case files from the parallel proceedings. 17.  On 4 May 2004 the applicant informed the court that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings had already been concluded in 2003 and asked about the whereabouts of the case files. 18.  On 26 July 2004 the court informed the applicant that the expert opinion which had been drawn up in the parallel proceedings would also be considered in the present proceedings. 19.  On 30 September 2004 the applicant opposed this, observing that on 31 October 2002 the parties had agreed upon the experts to be appointed in these proceedings and that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings was deficient and concerned the applicant’s state of health at the present time, not on 25 May 2000. 20.  On 13 June 2005 the case files and the medical documentation were resubmitted to the main expert. 21.  In the summer of 2005 the defendant was notified of the opinion of the thoracic surgery expert and criticised it on several grounds. 22.  On 14 September 2005 the main expert reminded the court of the need to appoint an additional expert for a neurological and psychiatric expert opinion. 23.  On 1 December 2005 the court appointed the expert whom the parties had agreed upon on 31 October 2002 to prepare the additional neurological and psychiatric expert opinion. 24.  On 6 December 2005 the case files were sent to the neurological and psychiatric expert. 25.  On 10 January 2006 that expert indicated that he wished to involve an additional expert who would draw up a separate expert opinion with regard to the psychiatric aspects. On 31 January 2006 the applicant consented. 26.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant was examined by both experts. 27.  On 16 March 2006 the applicant challenged the main expert on grounds of bias, on the basis of his conduct as an expert in the parallel proceedings. 28.  On 24 March 2006 the court requested the main expert to send back the case files so that it could rule on the challenge for bias. 29.  On 3 April 2006 the main expert submitted his comments on the challenge for bias and sent the case files back to the court. 30.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant urged the court to decide on the challenge for bias and to set a time-limit for the submission of the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 31.  On 24 August 2006 the court informed the applicant that the neurological and psychiatric experts had undertaken to submit their opinions by 10 September 2006. 32.  On 10 October 2006 the court urged the neurological and psychiatric experts to submit the opinions but received no answer. 33.  On 11 October 2006 the applicant inquired whether the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions had been submitted. 34.  On 21 October 2006 the present case was transferred to the Sixth Civil Division of the Regional Court and was filed under the number 6 O 95/06. 35.  On 8 December 2006 the applicant again asked the court to set a time-limit for the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 36.  On 31 January 2007 the court asked the neurological expert to submit the expert opinions but received no answer. 37.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant reminded the court to urge the expert to submit the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 38.  On 12 January 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court concerning the undue length of the proceedings. 39.  On 2 February 2007, the Federal Constitutional Court requested the Regional Court to provide a status update on the proceedings, which the latter transmitted on 22 February 2007 after having requested the neurological and psychiatric experts to return the files. The submissions of the Regional Court, however, mainly explained the circumstances of the parallel proceedings. 40.  Following a corresponding request by the Federal Constitutional Court, the Regional Court transmitted copies of the case files on 9 June 2007 and returned the original files to the neurological and psychiatric expert. 41.  On 20 September 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 20(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) in the present case on account of the length of the proceedings before the Göttingen Regional Court by explicitly referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It observed that the delay between the order of 29 August 2002 to prepare a comprehensive expert opinion and the forwarding of the case files to the neurological and psychiatric expert on 6 December 2005 was contrary to the principle of expeditious proceedings. In this connection it noted that the Regional Court had been aware of the necessity of a neurological and psychiatric expert opinion since 16 October 2002 but had failed to pursue the proceedings which were merely handled as a file joined to the parallel proceedings between June 2003 and August 2004, at least. It found that the Regional Court should have produced copies of the entire case files to facilitate expeditious proceedings and simultaneous examination by the numerous experts. It also found that the court had failed to adopt adequate procedural measures, which the applicant had suggested on several occasions, to facilitate the submission of the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. It further observed that the Regional Court had failed to decide on the applicant’s challenge for bias against the main expert without giving any reasons. It stated that the Regional Court would subsequently have to take all appropriate measures to expedite the proceedings. 42.  On 15 October 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court sent back the case files to the Regional Court. 43.  On 25 October 2007 the Eighth Civil Division of the Regional Court, under the new file number 8 O 133/07, set a time-limit of 19 November 2007 for the neurological expert to submit his opinions. 44.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant suggested that the neurological expert’s appointment be withdrawn and that a partial judgment be pronounced. 45.  On 29 November 2007 the court extended the time-limit for the neurological expert until 17 December 2007, on pain of a fine of EUR 500. 46.  On 21 December 2007 a neurological expert opinion dated 17 December 2007 and an additional psychiatric expert opinion dated 6 June 2006 were submitted to the court. The neurological expert opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 7 January 2008. 47.  On 21 December 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge for bias against the main expert. 48.  On 21 January 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision. His appeal was dismissed by the Braunschweig Court of Appeal on 7 March 2008. 49.  On 10 June 2008 the neurological expert was heard by the Regional Court with a view to solving preliminary questions regarding the main expert opinion. The Court further heard the thoracic surgery expert regarding his expert opinion dated 30 January 2003. 50.  On 16 July 2008 the files were sent to the main expert for the preparation of an expert opinion. 51.  The case is still pending before the Regional Court to this date.