4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mykolayiv. 5.  In 1990 the applicant's mother instituted civil proceedings in the Central District Court of Mykolayiv (the “District Court;” Центральний районний суд м. Миколаєва) against Mr S. (a private person), the co-owner of her house, seeking to divide adjacent land. In the course of the proceedings, the courts found that the disputed land consisted of two plots. One plot (“Plot A”) had been allotted for the joint use of the house owners by the Mykolayiv City Council (the “Council”). The other plot (“Plot B”) was used by the house owners without any authorisation. 6.  In 1993 the applicant, having acquired the title to his mother's part of the house, succeeded her as the plaintiff in the proceedings. 7.  In March 1995 the District Court informed the Council that the house owners used Plot B without authorisation and requested it to resolve the issue. On 4 April 1995 the Council gave the house owners joint title to Plot B. 8.  In November 1996 the proceedings were suspended in connection with a second set of proceedings instituted in July 1996 (see the detailed description of these proceedings in section B below). In 2001 the proceedings were resumed, however, in October 2001 suspended again on account of Mr S.'s death. On 3 September 2002 the proceedings were resumed, as Mr S.'s heirs - Mr G.S. and Ms L.S. – were admitted to the proceedings as defendants. 9.  On 2 October 2002 the District Court gave a decision on the merits of the dispute, having divided the land between the parties and having obliged them to abstain from installing fences or other constructions between the divided plots of the land. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the applicant 41.26 hryvnyas (“UAH”)[1] in compensation of fees and expenses. 10.  On 3 December 2002 the Regional Court modified this judgment, having relieved the parties from the obligation to abstain from installing constructions and having decreased the amount of compensation due to the applicant to UAH 9.08.[2] 11.  On 23 December 2003 the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the case, having rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation. 12.  In July 1996 Mr S. instituted civil proceedings against the Council and the applicant seeking annulment of the Council's decision of 4 April 1995, vesting in him and the applicant a joint title to Plot B, and claiming damages. 13.  On 7 August 1997 the District Court left Mr S.'s complaint without consideration on account of Mr S.'s repetitive failures to appear at the hearings. This decision was not appealed against and became final on 18 August 1997. 14.  On 12 December 1997 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed this decision following a “protest” introduced by its President for want of evidence that Mr S. had been duly notified of the hearing dates and remitted the case to the District Court for consideration on the merits. 15.  On 30 October 1998, following the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings, the President of the Regional Court reprimanded the President of the District Court for lack of action in facilitating prompt consideration of the case and, inter alia, ensuring attendance of the hearings by the parties. 16.  On 17 January 2000 the District Court annulled the Council's decision of 4 April 1995 and rejected Mr S.'s claims for damages. On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 17.  On 12 June 2000 the District Court annulled the Council's decision of 4 April 1995 and awarded Mr S. 370 hryvnyas[3] in non-pecuniary damage against the Council. On 26 July 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 18.  On 27 December 2000 the District Court dismissed Mr S.'s claims. The applicant requested the District Court to amend this judgment (постановити додаткове рішення) by ordering Mr S. to compensate the applicant for his court expenses and the time, which he had given to the proceedings. 19.  On 29 January 2001 the District Court allowed the applicant's request in part and amended the judgment, ordering Mr S. to pay the applicant UAH 30.09[4] in expenses and dismissing the remainder of his claims. 20.  On 23 January 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. 21.  On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court gave a final decision, rejecting the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the decision of 29 January 2001.