4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest. 5.  The applicant was employed by the Ministry of Interior as a stoker. His employment was terminated on 20 October 1997 due to his constructive dismissal, following the employer’s alleged breach of contract. 6.  On 18 May 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court seeking the payment of additional wages and other benefits. On 24 August 1995 the defendant requested the court to dismiss the applicant’s claims. 7.  At the hearing of 25 August 1995 the court heard the parties and requested the applicant to specify his claims. The applicant complied with the request on 8 September 1995. 8.  On 1 July 1996 the Labour Court appointed an expert auditor. On 6 October 1996 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the expert’s opinion be submitted speedily. 9.  On 22 January 1997 the defendant informed the court that the applicant had not appeared to collect the money earmarked for him. 10.  On 17 November 1997 the Labour Court set a 10-day time-limit for the expert to submit his opinion. On 19 January 1998 the court withdrew the expert’s appointment since he had failed to respect the time-limit. 11.  On 5 May 1998 the court invited the defendant to submit documents, which it did on 24 July 1998. 12.  After the applicant had extended his action, the Labour Court, at a hearing on 30 October 1998, separated the new claims from the proceedings and registered them under another case number. The applicant has not submitted any documents concerning the state of the latter proceedings. 13.  In a judgment of 6 November 1998, the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed and on 28 December 1998 brought a motion for bias against the judges of the Budapest Labour Court. 14.  On 31 March 1999 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Labour Court. It held that, as the expert had failed to submit his opinion, the first-instance court had relied only on the applicant’s calculations. 15.  On 9 December 1999 the applicant brought another motion for bias against the judges of the Budapest Regional Court. Subsequently, on 25 January 2000 the applicant’s motions were transferred to the Supreme Court for examination. 16.  On 5 April 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case in view of the fact that all the judges of the Budapest Labour Court had declared bias. 17.  On 16 June 2000 the Regional Court appointed a legal aid lawyer for the applicant. 18.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant lodged further submissions with the court. On 11 August 2000 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a preparatory document. 19.  At the hearing on 13 October 2000 the Regional Court heard the applicant and ordered the defendant to submit further documents. 20.  On 5 January 2001 the Regional Court heard the parties and informed them that a second defendant had joined the proceedings. 21.  The applicant’s motion for bias against the judges of the Regional Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 27 February 2001. 22.  At the hearing on 26 November 2001 the applicant submitted a renewed motion for bias against the judges of the Regional Court. On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Tatabánya Labour Court to deal with the case. 23.  On 12 March 2002 the Labour Court heard the parties. On 5 April 2002 the court suspended the proceedings and requested the Budapest 5th District Municipality to give consideration to placing the applicant under guardianship. 24.  On the applicant’s appeal against the order to suspend the proceedings, the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court upheld the suspension of the case for 60 days. 25.  On 19 July 2002 the Municipality informed the Labour Court that the applicant was being examined with a view to placing him under guardianship. 26.  On 20 February 2003 the Labour Court requested information on the state of the guardianship proceedings. 27.  The proceedings are apparently still pending. 28.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant brought another action against his employer. He requested the Budapest Labour Court to declare that he had terminated his contract of employment lawfully, whereas his employer had failed to comply with certain essential elements thereof. He also claimed severance pay. The applicant informed his employer of his resignation only on 20 November 1997. 29.  On 12 March 1998 the applicant specified his claims. 30.  A hearing scheduled for 1 April 1998 was adjourned due to the illness of the presiding judge. 31.  On 25 June and 14 July 1998 the applicant modified his claims. 32. At a hearing on 15 July 1998 the Budapest Labour Court heard the applicant and ordered that the documents he had submitted be sent to the defendant which had been unable to attend the hearing. In his submissions of 16 July 1998 the applicant requested that the minutes of this hearing be corrected. 33.  In a judgment of 4 November 1998 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 34.  In the appeal proceedings, on 28 April 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing. The applicant submitted further documents. 35.  At the hearing on 11 June 1999, on the applicant’s request, the Budapest Regional Court appointed a legal aid lawyer for him. Following the latter’s withdrawal, another legal aid lawyer was appointed to deal with the case. 36.  On 3 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to appoint another lawyer for him as he was not satisfied with the work of the present one. 37.  The judges of the division selected to hear the case declared bias and withdrew from the case. Subsequently, on 7 October 1999 the president of the Regional Court selected another division. This division later declared bias also, having regard to the applicant’s behaviour in another case pending before it. On 26 October 1999 the case was transferred to a third division. 38.  On 13 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a change of lawyer. 39.  On 24 January 2000 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court. 40.  On 5 April 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case, given that all the judges of the Budapest Labour Court had declared bias. 41.  On 16 June 2000 the Regional Court appointed another legal aid lawyer for the applicant. 42.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant lodged further submissions with the court. On 11 August 2000 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a preparatory document. 43.  At the hearing on 13 October 2000 the Regional Court heard the applicant and ordered the defendant to submit further documents. 44.  On 5 January 2001 the Regional Court heard the parties and informed them that a second defendant had joined the proceedings. 45.  The applicant’s motion for bias against all the judges of the Regional Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 27 February 2001. 46.  At the hearing on 26 November 2001 the applicant submitted a renewed motion for bias against the Regional Court. On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Tatabánya Labour Court to deal with the case. 47.  On 12 March 2002 the Labour Court heard the parties. On 5 April 2002 the court suspended the proceedings and requested the Budapest 5th District Municipality to consider the applicant’s placement under guardianship. 48.  On the applicant’s appeal against the order to suspend the proceedings, the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court upheld the suspension of the case for 60 days. 49.  On 19 July 2002 the Municipality informed the Labour Court that the applicant was being examined with a view to placing him under guardianship. 50.  On 20 February 2003 the Labour Court requested information on the state of the guardianship proceedings. 51.  The proceedings are still pending.