4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Budapest. 5.  On 9 March 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Siófok District Court, claiming his share of the inheritance of his late father’s property (öröklési igény megállapítása). The District Court held hearings on 9 September, 23 November and 16 December 1993, and 3 February 1994. On 24 February 1994 a further claim of the applicant, brought under a head of unjustified enrichment (jogalap nélküli gazdagodás), was joined to the case. A further hearing was held on 5 July 1994. On 10 September 1994 a real estate expert submitted his opinion. 6.  At the hearing on 20 October 1994, the applicant informed the District Court that the first respondent, his mother, had died on 3 October 1994. Subsequently, on 27 October 1994 the District Court suspended the proceedings, which by then involved several respondents, pending the successor of the first respondent joining the case. 7.  After the applicant had identified the successors of his late mother, on 14 March 1995 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of another case instituted on 21 February 1995, in which the applicant had requested the District Court to declare his mother’s will null and void (végrendelet érvénytelenségének megállapítása). The court observed that the outcome of those proceedings would be decisive for the procedural succession. On 19 May 1995 the Somogy County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 8.  On 18 May 1995 the competent bench of the Siófok District Court transferred the case concerning the will’s validity to the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court. That court held hearings on a regular basis until 14 January 2000. On that date, it dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the validity of the will and discontinued the proceedings in respect of certain other questions (a takarékbetétkönyv kifizetése és a szőlő megművelése tárgyában) still pending before the Siófok District Court. Moreover, on 26 January 2000 it discontinued the proceedings concerning some related compensation claims of the applicant (gyümölcsös megművelésének elmaradása miatti kárigény). 9.  On 3 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the decision of 14 January concerning the will itself. Considering the first-instance decision as a partial judgment, it observed that several secondary claims were not examined, in respect of which the District Court proceedings were to be resumed. Simultaneously, the court quashed the decision of 26 January 2000, as a result of which the District Court was to continue the examination of those compensation claims as well. 10.  Meanwhile, the applicant had introduced another claim concerning his statutory share of the estate (kötelesrész iránti igény), which was disjoined from the principal question pending before the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court on 14 January 2000 (see paragraph 8 above). On 23 March 2000 the competent bench of this court suspended the examination of the issue pending the outcome of the 1993 inheritance proceedings (see paragraphs 5 to 7 above). On 19 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this order. 11.  Parallel to these events, on 18 April 2001 the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court resumed the proceedings concerning the remaining secondary claims (see paragraph 8 above). It held hearings on 26 April and 3 July 2001. On that day, it dismissed part of the applicant’s claims and disjoined some others concerning the restoration of certain buildings (felépítmények helyreállítására vonatkozó kereseti kérelem). On 29 January 2002 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The first instance proceedings concerning the disjoined claims resumed on 28 February 2002 and were suspended on 19 November 2002, pending the proceedings in respect of the statutory share (see paragraph 10 above). 12.  After the final dismissal on 3 October 2000 of the applicant’s challenge to the will’s validity (see paragraph 9 above), the Siófok District Court resumed the 1993 proceedings (see paragraphs 5 to 7 above). It held hearings on 26 April, 28 June and 20 September 2001. On 31 October 2001 the District Court ordered the applicant to submit further evidence for his statements and better particulars of his claims. It held more hearings on 22 November 2001 and 7 February 2002. On 20 February 2002 it dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias. On 16 April 2002 the District Court gave judgment, ordering that the applicant’s ownership be registered in respect of part of the real properties belonging to the estate. It rejected the remainder of the claims. On 31 October 2002 the Somogy County Regional Court amended this decision. 13.  Following the delivery of the above final decision (see paragraph 12) concerning the 1993 case, the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court resumed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s statutory share of the estate on 18 June 2003 (see paragraph 10 above). On 8 July 2003 it discontinued the proceedings. On a procedural appeal, they were resumed on 20 April 2004. On that date, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On appeal, on 23 November 2004 the Budapest Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and awarded 33,348 Hungarian forints (HUF) to the applicant.