4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kyiv. 5.  The circumstances of the case and court proceedings relate to a labour dispute between the applicant and his former employer, the State Patent Agency (“the Agency”, Держпатент). 6.  On 1 September 1998 the applicant was dismissed from the Agency. 7.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv (“Shevchenkivsky Court”) against the Agency seeking reinstatement and claiming salary arrears and related payments. 8.  On 21 October 1998 the court allowed his claims. Consequently, the applicant was reinstated. 9.  The Agency appealed. On 24 February 1999 the judgment of 21 October 1998 was quashed by the Kyiv City Court and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. The judgment resulted in cancellation of the first instance court’s finding that the applicant was dismissed illegally. 10.  On 4 March 1999 the applicant was dismissed again. On 10 March 1999 the applicant challenged his second dismissal before the Shevchenkivsky Court. He also claimed payment of salary arrears and various allowances. 11.  On 17 March 1999 the proceedings concerning the first and second dismissals were joined. 12.  On 14 January 2000 the Shevchenkivsky Court found against the applicant. 13.  On 29 March 2000 the Kyiv City Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the applicant’s second dismissal and related pecuniary claims, having confirmed the first instance court’s findings concerning the applicant’s first dismissal. 14.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 11 October 2004 the Shevchenkivsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims concerning his second dismissal. 15.  On 14 February 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in the part concerning the lawfulness of the second dismissal. The Court of Appeal invalidated the Agency’s dismissal order of 4 March 1999 though found that it was not a ground for reinstatement because of the legality of the first dismissal as confirmed by the Shevchenkivsky Court’s judgment of 14 January 2000. The remaining part of the first instance court’s judgment (concerning pecuniary claims) was upheld. 16.  Having received the official text of the judgment, the applicant appealed in cassation on 9 March 2005. 17.  On 7 December 2006 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation. 18.   In the course of the proceeding the applicant amended and clarified his claims on a number of occasions. He also made procedural requests with a view to obtaining information pertinent to the case. Out of forty-two scheduled hearings, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request or due to his failure to appear, five because of both parties’ failure to appear, three because of the non-appearance of defendants or representatives thereof. Five hearings were adjourned as the judge was busy with another case or absent for health, business trip or professional mandate reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the parties’ request, the term for lodging an appeal, finding no fault on their part, which resulted in delays of about one and half months. 19. In 1998-1999 two sets of administrative proceedings linked to the applicant’s labour dispute were instituted against him. By the final decisions of 12 October 1998 and 22 February 1999, respectively, they were terminated. 20.  In 1998-1999 the applicant instituted two sets of civil proceedings against the Agency. In particular, he claimed that his record of service had not been correctly calculated by the Agency and that he had not been given leave entitlement according to the law. In 1999 the proceedings concerning the leave entitlement claim were discontinued. On 10 April 2001 the Shevchenkivsky Court delivered a judgment allowing the applicant’s record of service claim.