4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bijela Brda. 5.  On 9 April 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Beograd Third Municipal Court against a certain N.D., seeking repayment of a loan. 6.  Having heard the applicant in person at a hearing on 20 June 2002, on 5 November 2002 the court gave a judgment accepting the applicant's claim. On 26 November 2003 the Beograd District Court quashed that judgment for factual shortcomings and remitted the case. In its decision, the District Court instructed the first-instance court to hear and confront the parties, as well as to hear the other witnesses proposed by the applicant with a view to establishing, inter alia, whether the loan had been made to N.D. or to his father, whether a part of it had in the meantime been repaid and whether the claim was time-barred. 7.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held a hearing on 16 November 2004, which the applicant did not attend although duly summoned. On that occasion, his lawyer informed the court that the applicant was in poor health and needed surgery. Therefore, the applicant would not be able to attend court hearings, but maintained all his claims, as previously stated in his oral and written submissions to the court. 8.  On 1 April 2005 the applicant submitted a medical certificate, stating that he suffered from paranoid psychosis with signs of hypochondria, and that he was unable to attend court hearings. 9.  The court appears to have held further hearings on 17 June and 7 October 2005, both attended by the applicant's lawyer. It also obtained an expert opinion on 27 May 2005. 10.  The court subsequently ordered the applicant's lawyer to inform it of the exact date and place where the applicant would be medically treated. It further contacted the medical institution which had issued the certificate of 1 April 2005, requesting its opinion on whether the applicant's health allowed him to be a party to the proceedings. It would appear that none of the court orders has ever been complied with. 11.  At the hearing held on 26 September 2006 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim, whereas the respondent submitted that, if the applicant was ill, the court could not continue the proceedings. 12.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.