8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest. 9.  On 7 July 1993 Mr and Mrs N. brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. The litigation concerned a contract of loan which had been concluded between the parties. The plaintiffs sought annulment of the acquisition by the applicant of their flat, which had been used as security in the event of their non-payment of the loan. On 15 July 1993 the applicant filed his counterclaims. 10.  On 9 February, 21 March, 5 October 1994 and 8 March 1995 the District Court held hearings. 11.  On 13 March 1995 the District Court adopted a judgment in which it annulled the applicant's acquisition of the flat. As to the loan contract, the court decided to reduce the amount owed by the plaintiffs' to the applicant. 12.  On 22 March 1995 the plaintiffs appealed and, simultaneously, requested that the contract of loan should itself be annulled and that the judgment of 13 March 1995 should be supplemented to that effect. On 27 March 1995 the applicant filed his appeal. 13.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a motion for bias which was dismissed on 26 May 1995. 14.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a motion for bias which was dismissed on 26 May 1995. The Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 29 June and 14 November 1995. On the latter date the court suspended the appeal proceedings pending the first-instance completion of the judgment of 13 March 1995. 15.  The hearings scheduled by the District Court for 7 February and 12 April 1996 were adjourned on account of unsuccessful attempts to summon one of the defendants. 16.  By a supplementary decision of 9 October 1996, the District Court allowed the plaintiffs' claim for completion of the initial judgment and accordingly ruled that the contract of loan should be annulled. 17.  On 21 November 1996 the applicant appealed. Subsequently, he challenged the second-instance court for bias. 18.  On 17 February 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias. It resumed the suspended proceedings and held a hearing on 8 July 1997. At that hearing the applicant reiterated his allegations of bias. 19.  On 4 September 1997 the judges declared bias and withdrew from the case. 20.  A hearing scheduled for 22 January 1998 was cancelled on account of the illness of a judge on the newly appointed bench. A hearing took place on 2 June 1998. 21.  On 9 June 1998 the Regional Court adopted a second-instance judgment upholding in essence the decisions taken at first instance. 22.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant submitted a petition for review. 23.  On 23 February 1999 the Supreme Court ordered the completion of the petition and attempted to notify the plaintiffs thereof. Subsequently a guardian ad litem had to be appointed for the plaintiffs. The guardian submitted the plaintiffs' claims in reply on 22 December 1999. 24.  On 4 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review. This decision was served on him on 17 July 2000. 25.  On 11 October 1994 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court against Mr and Mrs S., guarantors of the above-mentioned contract of loan. On 26 October 1994 the court ordered the applicant to complete his action. He did so on 5 December 1994. 26.  On 18 July 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the defendants to pay him 610,000 Hungarian forints. 27.  On 21 August 1995 the defendants appealed. They were subsequently ordered to complete their appeal. On their request, the Regional Court gave them leave until 20 November 1995 to do so. 28.  On 20 May 1996 the Regional Court held a hearing and dismissed the defendants' appeal. 29.  On 16 December 1997 the Supreme Court, in review proceedings, quashed the second-instance decision holding that the validity of the loan contract had to be dealt with as a preliminary issue. 30.  In the resumed proceedings, on 20 May 1998 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal concerning the aforementioned action brought by Mr and Mrs N. against the applicant. 31.  Following the Supreme Court's review decision of 4 April 2000 in the first proceedings, the Regional Court recommenced the examination of the second case and, on 31 January 2001, it dismissed the defendants' appeal. No petition for review was filed against this decision.