5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Lübz. 6.  In 1992 the applicant married his wife Mrs S. They have three children, born in 1992, 1995 and 1997. In April 2003 the applicant moved out of the common household and moved in with his new partner. 7.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Schwerin District Court. The petition was received by that court on 17 August 2004. On 1 September 2004 his wife Mrs S. likewise filed a petition for divorce. Both parties were represented by lawyers. 8.  On 2 September 2004 the District Court granted the applicant legal aid. 9.  On 17 October 2005 the District Court scheduled an oral hearing for 15 November 2005. The hearing was subsequently cancelled as Mrs S. had announced shortly before the hearing that she had changed counsel. 10.  On 14 November 2005 Mrs S. announced further motions concerning post-marriage maintenance (nachehelicher Unterhalt). 11.  On 11 April 2006 the District Court held an oral hearing. The parties agreed on the applicant being obliged to supply specific information on his additional income from company shares and granting loans, notably to assess his ability to provide maintenance. 12.  On 19 September 2006, referring to an earlier request of 3 February 2006, the applicant asked the court to decide on his request to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters (Folgesachen) and to grant the divorce ahead of those proceedings. 13.  On 27 September 2006 the District Court requested Mrs S. to specify the requested maintenance in terms of amount within two weeks. 14.  From 4 June 2007 to 27 August 2007 Mrs S. had treatment in a psychiatric hospital due to mental distress in conjunction with the proceedings and the legal and financial uncertainty. On 13 June 2007 Mrs S. therefore requested to cancel a hearing scheduled for 22 June 2007. 15.  On 10 October 2007 the applicant anew requested the District Court to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters. 16.  On 10 June 2008 the District Court scheduled an oral hearing for 11 September 2008. On 12 August 2008 the summons was sent out to the parties and on 11 September 2008 the hearing took place as scheduled. 17.  On 7 January 2009 the applicant again requested the District Court to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters, in particular maintenance, and to grant the divorce ahead of those proceedings. On 23 January 2009 the District Court informed the parties about its legal view on the request. 18.  In February 2009 the applicant for three days had treatment in a psychiatric hospital due to the mental distress caused by the divorce proceedings. Since 2007 the applicant has been in therapeutic treatment. 19.  On 12 March 2009 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request. It found that the legal requirements laid down in Article 628 sentence 1 no. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Relevant domestic law below) had not been met. It was true that there had been an exceptional delay in the divorce proceedings. However, the applicant was not suffering unacceptable hardship. Such an unacceptable hardship was only given where one party’s interest in an immediate divorce outweighed the other party’s interest in a decision on the divorce and the ancillary matters at the same time. 20.  On 12 January 2010 the District Court delivered its judgment. Both parties appealed against the judgment. 21.  On 16 November 2010 the Rostock Court of Appeal held a hearing. The case was concluded as the parties reached a settlement regarding maintenance and withdrew the appeal concerning divorce.