5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Drobeta-Turnu Severin. 6.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant brought criminal proceedings and joined civil claims against a third party for forgery and use of forged documents. 7.  In a letter of 2 April 1997 addressed to the domestic authorities investigating the case, the applicant complained that the investigation had been excessively lengthy and that the authorities had failed to react with sufficient urgency. 8.  By a final order of 12 July 2002, the Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the third party on the grounds that it was time-barred. At the same time, it referred the case to the civil courts, in particular the Drobeta-Turnu Severin District Court, to determine whether the documents contested by the applicant had been forged by the third party and whether the said documents were invalid. 9.  By a judgment of 26 November 2002 the Drobeta-Turnu Severin District Court referred the case to the Mehedinţi County Court, on the grounds that it had jurisdiction to examine the case. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. 10.  By a final judgment of 31 January 2003 the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 26 November 2002 as without merit. 11.  By a judgment of 10 June 2003, after examining the merits of the applicant’s case, the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the basis of documentary, testimonial and expert evidence. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment on the grounds that the first-instance court had failed to examine the validity of some of the documents contested by him. 12.  By a final judgment of 24 February 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 10 June 2003 and ordered a retrial by the first-instance court. It held that the first-instance court had not examined the validity of some of the documents contested by the applicant, which amounted to a failure to examine the merits of the case. 13.  By a judgment of 16 June 2004 the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the merits. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 14.  By a judgment of 3 November 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 16 June 2004 on the merits. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment. 15.  By a final judgment of 2 November 2006 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a bench of three judges which included judges E.E. and B.S., dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 3 November 2004 on procedural grounds without touching on the merits. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal (contestaţie în anulare) against the judgment on the grounds that the domestic courts had failed to examine one of the grounds of appeal on points of law he had raised. 16.  By a final judgment of 4 March 2008 the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s extraordinary appeal, quashed the final judgment of 2 November 2006 and ordered a retrial. It held that the Court of Cassation sitting as a court of final appeal had failed to examine all the grounds of appeal on points of law raised by the applicant. 17.  By a final judgment of 25 November 2008 the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 3 November 2004, quashed the said judgment and ordered a retrial. It held that the court of appeal had failed to clarify the factual circumstances of the case. 18.  By a judgment of 3 June 2009 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 16 June 2004 on the merits. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment. 19.  On 28 April 2010 judges E.E. and B.S. lodged a request before the Court of Cassation to be allowed to withdraw from examining the applicant’s case, on the grounds that they had already examined the same case between the same parties on 2 November 2006. By a final interlocutory judgment delivered on the same date the Court of Cassation dismissed the two judges’ request without providing any reasons. 20.  By a final judgment of 29 April 2010, served on the applicant on 1 September 2010, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a bench of three judges including judges E.E. and B.S., dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the merits. 21.  On 19 April 2007, in his initial letter to the Court, the applicant alleged that the proceedings he had brought against the third party for forgery and use of forged documents had been excessively lengthy. He also informed the Court that he had brought extraordinary appeal proceedings against the judgment of 2 November 2006. 22.   In a letter of 1 July 2011 the applicant alleged for the first time before the Court that the proceedings brought by him against the third party had been unfair because judges E.E. and B.S. had examined his case during both the second and third rounds of proceedings. He did not make any further submissions concerning the length of the proceedings.