4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bucharest. 5.  On 23 September 1994 N.B., the applicant's father lodged a criminal complaint with the Strehaia District Court for injuries against G.M. seeking compensation for damage. 6.  On 19 January 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice, acting at the request of N.B. for the file to be transferred to another jurisdiction, transferred the case to the Timişoara District Court. The case was registered with this latter court on 21 February 1995. 7.  The applicant's father joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings on 26 April 1995. 8.  On 31 May 1995, the Timişoara District Court gave judgment, acquitting G.M. on the ground that the evidence in the case did not support N.B.'s allegations. It consequently dismissed the claim for damages. 9.  In a final decision of 15 January 1996, the Timiş County Court dismissed N.B.'s appeal and confirmed the lower court's decision. 10.  On an unknown date, the Procurator-General, acting at the request of N.B., lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision of 15 January 1996 quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the decision had seriously infringed the law because it had inaccurately interpreted the evidence, in particular, the forensic report. 11.  In a final decision of 27 May 1997, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the two decisions of the ordinary courts and sent the case back to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Strehaia District Court for further investigations. 12.  On 13 April and 9 October 1998, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Mehedinţi County Court allowed complaints by the applicant that there had been unjustified delays in the investigations. The applicant continued the proceedings after his father's death. 13.  On 25 February 1999, the same Prosecutor's Office decided not to start criminal proceedings against G.M., on the ground that the evidence gathered did not prove that the latter had committed an offence. 14.  However, on 18 June 1999, when this decision was contested by the applicant, the Prosecutor's Office reversed its decision and sent the case back to the Mehedinţi police for further investigation. 15.  On 2 March 2000, the Prosecutor's Office upheld its earlier decision not to start criminal proceedings against G.M. However, on 16 May 2001, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal reversed the decision of 2 March 2000. 16.  On 12 October 2001, the Mehedinţi Prosecutor's Office confirmed its previous decisions. Following complaints by the applicant, this decision was upheld by the Craiova Prosecutor's Office on 26 June 2002 and by the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 April 2003. 17.  Subsequently, on 19 May 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Strehaia District Court to have the prosecutors' decisions quashed. 18.  In a judgment of 1 September 2003, the District Court confirmed the decision adopted by the prosecutors, on the grounds that a new forensic opinion of 24 September 2001 contradicted the previous findings concerning the trauma that N.B. had allegedly suffered and, in these circumstances, G.M.'s guilt could not be established. 19.  This judgment was confirmed following an appeal by the applicant, in a final decision of 24 October 2003 of the Mehedinţi County Court.