4.  On 13 December 1994, the applicant sold a horse to A.G. for PLN 2,500. Two days later the buyer returned the horse claiming that it was ill. The applicant was therefore forced to pay the costs of the horse’s upkeep during the following year. As A.G. constantly refused to take the horse back, the applicant sold it to another buyer, as he could not afford the costs of upkeep. 5.  On 25 January 1995 A.G. lodged a suit against the applicant with the Tarnobrzeg District Court, claiming payment of the price. 6.  On 14 March 1995 the applicant lodged a counter-claim for costs of the upkeep of the horse. 7.  During the first hearing on 15 March 1995 the court admitted witness evidence and adjourned the case. 8.  On 5 April 1995 the court heard witnesses and adjourned the case. 9.  On 22 May 1995 the court admitted in evidence an opinion of a veterinary surgeon and adjourned the case. 10.  On 25 July 1995 the expert submitted the opinion, stating that the horse was well and had never been ill. 11.  On 6 September 1995 the court called an expert in agriculture, who estimated that the costs of upkeep of the horse had greatly exceeded its value. The court adjourned the case. 12.  On 2 October 1995 the court heard the parties. 13.  On 11 October 1995 the court delivered a judgment. Both parties appealed. 14.  On 28 March 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court to have it completed. 15.  On 5 September 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. 16.  On 16 January 1997 the parties declared that they could not reach a friendly settlement. 17.  On 9 October 1997 the court admitted the evidence of a witness and adjourned the case. 18.  On 10 February 1997 a witness was heard and the case was adjourned. 19.  On 9 April 1998 further witnesses were heard. 20.  On 2 June 1998 the court admitted in evidence another expert’s opinion. 21.  On 18 January 1999 the expert submitted the opinion. 22.  On 31 March 1999 the court summoned the expert and adjourned the case. 23.  On 5 May 1999 the court found that the plaintiff had not paid an advance for the expert’s opinion and adjourned the case until 2 June 1999. The expert failed to attend the hearing on that day and the case was adjourned until 25 June. 24.  On 19 November 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment, ordering PLN 4,690 to be paid by the applicant with interest from 1995, and 903 PLN to be paid by A.G. to the applicant. 25.  On 13 April 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeals of both parties.