4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia. 5.  On 15 March 1995 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the Croatian Privatisation Fund and other two companies, seeking annulment of the share purchase contract whereby the Fund sold the shares of one company, in which the applicant holds the shares, to the other one. 6.  On 23 May 1995 the court issued a decision dismissing the second respondent's plea of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae (stvarna nadležnost). Following an appeal by the second respondent, on 21 December 1995 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) reversed the first-instance decision finding that the ordinary courts had no jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 11 September 1997 the Administrative Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter and applied to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction created thereby. On 1 October 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the ordinary courts had competence in the matter. On 11 December 1998 the case was transferred back to the Zadar Municipal Court. 7.  The Municipal Court held hearings on 3 May 2000 and 19 February 2002. 8.  On 23 March 2004 the court stayed the proceedings on account of the insolvency proceedings that had been opened against the second respondent on 16 November 2000. Those insolvency proceedings ended on 4 October 2004 when the P.P. company was deleted from the business register. 9.  Because of the insolvency proceedings, on 9 February 2005 the Zadar Municipal Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Zadar Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zadru). 10.  On 24 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the High Commercial Court which request was dismissed on 3 November 2006. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. 11.  On 18 October 2006 the Zadar Commercial Court stayed the proceedings because the second respondent had ceased to exist as a legal entity. 12.  On 10 November 2006 the applicant appealed against that decision to the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske). 13.  On 17 May 2007 the Supreme Court reversed the High Commercial Court's decision of 3 November 2006 (see paragraph 10 above) by finding a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 14,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Commercial Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months of service of its decision. 14.  The Supreme Court's decision was served on the Zadar Commercial Court on 29 June 2007. 15.  Since at that time the case was pending before the High Commercial Court, on 3 July 2007 the judge of the Zadar Commercial Court, assigned to hear the case, wrote a letter to the High Commercial Court urging it to decide on the appeal by the applicant of 10 November 2006 against the first-instance decision. He explained that otherwise he could not proceed in the case and comply with the Supreme Court's order of 17 May 2007 to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months. 16.  On 31 December 2008 the High Commercial Court dismissed the applicant's appeal from 10 November 2006 in part and upheld the first-instance decision in respect of the first and the second respondent. It however quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case in respect of the third respondent. The case was returned to the Commercial Court on 26 January 2009. 17.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the second-instance judgment, which the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared inadmissible on 4 June 2009. 18.  On 9 September 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court's decision. On 26 November 2009 the Constitutional Court declared applicant's complaint inadmissible. 19.  Meanwhile, in the resumed proceedings following the High Commercial Court's decision on remittal of 31 December 2008, on 11 March 2009 the Zadar Commercial Court delivered a judgment ruling against the applicant. 20.  The applicant appealed on 25 April 2009, and the proceedings are currently pending before the High Commercial Court.