5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in the town of Yalta. The applicant suffers from the diseases resulting in the highest recognised degree of disability, including arterial hypertension, sclerosis of the cerebral vessels and circulatory encephalopathy. In 1988 the authorities provided the applicant with a specially equipped car in order to facilitate his movement. 6.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant’s car was damaged in a traffic accident, involving a car driven by Mrs F. 7.  On the same date a traffic police officer drew up a report, stating that the applicant was responsible for the accident, and started administrative offence proceedings against him. On 19 June 1997 the Deputy Chief Officer of the Yalta Town Police Department discontinued these proceedings, finding no fault. 8.  On 12 July 1997 the same officer found that Mrs F. was responsible for the accident and fined her with UAH 40[1]. 9.  On 26 August 1997 the Yalta Town Court quashed the decision of 12 July 1997 and ordered the police to conduct a further examination of the case. It held that the police had based their decisions on the conclusions of a person whose competence to give an official expert opinion had not been verified. 10.  On 25 September 1997 the police drew up another report in which they reiterated their conclusions of 12 July 1997. The police, however, could not institute administrative proceedings against Mrs F., as they were time-barred. 11.  In July 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Yalta Town Court (“the Yalta Court”) against Mrs F., seeking compensation. The applicant alleged that he had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage because of the accident. According to the applicant, his car was a write-off and unusable. 12.  On 22 August and 5 September1997 the case was adjourned pending the outcome of the proceedings against Mrs F. concerning an administrative offence arising out of the incident. 13.  On 11 September 1997 the applicant challenged this procedural decision of 5 September 1997 before the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic Crimea (“the ARC”). 14.  On 6 October 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC rejected the applicant’s complaint. 15.  In November 1997 the Yalta Court rejected the defendant’s request for an expert examination of the accident. 16.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant amended his original claims. 17.  On 5 December 1997 the court found for the applicant and ordered Mrs F. to pay him UAH 1,641[2] in compensation. 18.  On 19 January 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC adjourned the consideration of the defendant’s appeal in cassation due to the applicant’s failure to appear for the hearing. 19.  On 9 February 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 20.  On 17 April 1998 the Yalta Court ordered an expert examination of the accident at the defendant’s expense and suspended the proceedings. 21.  On 29 September 1998 the Yalta Court was informed about the conclusions of the expert examination. 22.  On 16 October 1998 the court postponed a hearing due to the applicant’s illness. 23.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant lodged a motion with the court to have the judge dealing with his case withdrawn from the proceedings. 24.  On 5 November 1998 the case was transferred to another judge of the same court. 25.  On 1 December 1998 the hearing was adjourned following the applicant’s request. 26.  On 2 December 1998 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing until 10 December 1998. 27.  On 10 December 1998 the court rescheduled the hearing for 12 January 1999 in order to allow the defendant to study the case file. 28.  On 10 December 1998 the applicant challenged the judge who was hearing the case. 29.  On 12 January 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the judge. 30.  On the same date it found in part for the applicant and ordered Mrs F. to pay him UAH 620.50[3] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court held, relying on the expert conclusions, that the parties were equally responsible for the accident. 31.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant requested the court to postpone the proceedings due to his illness. 32.  On 15 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment of the Yalta Court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. 33.  On 19 August 1999 the hearing before the Yalta Court was adjourned due to the judge’s illness. 34.  On 13 September 1999 the President of the Yalta Court transferred the case to another judge. 35.  On 19 October 1999 Mrs F. lodged a counter-claim, seeking compensation. Mrs F. alleged that she had suffered moral distress because of the accident and had had to undergo medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital. She further alleged that the applicant had maliciously disclosed her diagnosis, of which he had become aware during the proceedings, to third parties. 36.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant amended his claims for the second time. He sought a higher amount of compensation. 37.  On 10 December 1999 the Acting Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the ARC transferred the case to the Alushta Town Court (“the Alushta Court”). 38.  On 3 February 2000 the Alushta Court ordered another expert examination of the accident at the applicant’s expense and suspended the proceedings. 39.  On 27 March 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against the ruling of 3 February 2000. 40.  On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC informed the applicant that his request for a supervisory review of the ruling of 3 February 2000 had been rejected. 41.  On 26 June 2000 the Alushta Court sent the case file for an expert examination. The latter was not carried out because of the applicant’s failure to pay for it. 42.  On 16 January 2001 the case was sent back to the Alushta Court. 43.  On 6 February 2001 the court adjourned the hearing due to the applicant’s failure to appear before it. 44.  On 22 February 2001 the Alushta Court left the case without consideration due to the parties’ failure to appear. 45.  On 9 April 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the decision of 22 February 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that there was no documentary evidence in the case file indicating that the applicant had been duly summoned to the hearing of 22 February 2001. 46.  The hearings of 6 August and 1 October 2001 were adjourned following the applicant’s motions in which he sought the participation of the defendant’s husband, Mr F., as a co-defendant in the proceedings and objected to the hearing in the absence of the latter. 47.  On 15 October 2001 the court heard the merits of the case and rescheduled the hearing pending receipt of additional documents. 48.  On 12 November 2001 the court, following the defendants’ motion, to which the applicant objected, ordered a forensic medical examination of the state of the mental health of Mrs F., and suspended the proceedings. 49.  On 5 February 2002 the examination was completed. 50.  On 25 February 2002 the court postponed the hearing due to the defendants’ failure to appear. 51.  On 12 March 2002 the court heard the merits of the case. 52.  On 14 March 2002 the court delivered a judgment by which it rejected both the applicant’s claim and the defendant’s counter-claim. Referring to the expert conclusions of 1998, the court held that the parties were equally responsible for the accident. 53.  On 24 April 2002 the court made certain textual amendments to its judgment of 14 March 2002. 54.  On 27 May 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the judgment of the first instance court. 55.  On 19 September 2002 the same court extended the time-limit for lodging the applicant’s appeal in cassation. 56.  On 28 May 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine held that the applicant had failed to comply with the formalities envisaged for the introduction of appeals and rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. 57.  On 2 July 2003 the Alushta Court granted the applicant a time-limit to rectify the shortcomings of his appeal in cassation. 58.  On 17 July 2003 the applicant lodged with the Alushta Court the corrected version of his appeal in cassation. 59.  On 1 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. 60.  In July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutors, alleging that on 12 July 1999 he had been beaten by the President of the Yalta Court, Mr R. 61.  On 17 August 2000 the Yalta Town Prosecutor refused to start a criminal investigation into the matter, finding the above complaint unsubstantiated. 62.  On 20 October 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC quashed the decision of 17 August 2000 and ordered a further enquiry into the applicant’s complaint. 63.  On 10 November 2004 the Yalta Town Prosecutor’s Office refused to start a criminal investigation into the matter, finding no factual basis for the applicant’s allegations. 64.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of 10 November 2004 before the national courts.