5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 30 January 1994 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of first-degree murder. On the next day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Timiş County Court opened a criminal investigation and authorised his continued detention. 7.  On 18 November 1994 the applicant was brought to trial on indictment on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated theft. 8.  From February to December 1995 monthly hearings before the Timiş County Court were scheduled to hear evidence from prosecution witnesses. 9.  On 13 December 1995 the court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities for further investigation. On 22 April 1996 this decision was reversed on appeal by the Timişoara Court of Appeal, which found that the criminal investigation was complete and that the trial should continue before the first-instance court. 10.  When the proceedings were resumed, the county court listed hearings for the examination of the defence witnesses and adjourned the case on five occasions before delivering its judgment. 11.  On 22 November 1996 the applicant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to an eighteen-year prison sentence. 12.  On 14 April 1997 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed appeals by both parties, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re-examination. 13.  On 15 September 1997 the applicant was convicted again and given an eighteen-year prison sentence. His appeal was dismissed on 12 March 1998 by the Court of Appeal of Timişoara.
He lodged a further appeal, which was allowed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“ICCJ”) on 28 October 1998. The case was thus sent back to the prosecution authorities on the ground that the criminal investigation had been incomplete. 14.  On 8 July 1999 the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an indictment with the Timiş County Court on charges of first-degree murder. The theft charges were dropped. 15.  The county court summoned witnesses and, at the prosecution’s request, ordered that a forensic medical report be submitted in the space of six months. The applicant’s requests for a counter forensic medical report, as well as for the removal of the panel of judges on allegations of partiality, were rejected. 16.  On 5 May 2000 the applicant was convicted of first-degree murder and given a fifteen-year prison sentence. His appeal on points of law was allowed by the ICCJ on 9 November 2000, and the case was sent back to the prosecuting authorities for further investigation. 17.  On 15 October 2001 a new bill of indictment was issued against the applicant on the same charges of first-degree murder. Shortly after the case was registered with the Timiş County Court, the applicant filed a request with the ICCJ for referral to a different court on allegations of lack of impartiality. Hearings were subsequently adjourned for failure to serve the bill of indictment on the applicant. 18.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant’s request for the case to be referred to another court was allowed by the ICCJ and the case was referred to the Dolj County Court. 19.  The case remained with that court for more than a year. It was necessary to schedule several hearings on account of absences and improper summoning of witnesses, and pending the submission of a forensic report. 20.  On 9 September 2003 the Dolj County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fifteen-year prison sentence. He filed a notice of appeal. 21.  Of the hearings scheduled before the higher court, five were successively adjourned for failure to properly summon the applicant. 22.  On 16 May 2005 the Court of Appeal of Craiova rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal as time-barred. 23.  The ICCJ allowed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and ordered a retrial on appeal. 24.  On 2 November 2005 the Court of Appeal of Craiova dismissed the appeal. 25.  On 6 April 2006 the ICCJ dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant and upheld the lower court’s decision. 26.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest. 27.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was informed that a civil lawsuit had been filed against him with the Bucharest District Court no. 2. The legal dispute concerned the division of an estate co-inherited by the applicant and his aunt, who brought the claim to the court. 28.  The trial at first instance involved several hearings to enable the plaintiffs to specify their claims and pay stamp duty. 29.  In March 1998 the applicant lodged a request for the case to be referred to a different court. On 19 May 1998 the ICCJ allowed the request and sent the case to be heard before the Bucharest District Court no. 6. 30.  Shortly after the case was registered with that court, several hearings were adjourned on account of the authorities’ failure to submit documents requested by the court. 31.  On 21 January 1999, owing to the repeated adjournments of the hearings on account of the relevant authorities’ failure to submit court-ordered documents, the applicant lodged a request for the proceedings to be stayed. The court allowed this request by a ruling. 32.  On 22 November 1999 the proceedings were resumed at the applicant’s request. On the same date he asked the court to serve him the summons at an address in China, where he was studying. The district court considered his request to be abusive and continued to serve the summons at his former residence in Bucharest. 33.  On 6 September 2001, however, the district court considered that the applicant had not misused his procedural rights by seeking to be given legal notice of the proceedings in China. It ruled that the applicant had been precluded from giving evidence and annulled as unlawful all procedural acts performed between 16 December 1999 and 22 February 2001. It ordered that they be carried out again in the applicant’s presence. 34.  On 13 December 2001, the district court allowed the action in part and ruled on the shares of property to be individually attributed to the parties. 35.  The applicant filed a notice of appeal. 36.  On appeal, the applicant submitted a request for the review of the constitutionality of Article 1141 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby a defendant living abroad has to set up residence in Romania to be given legal notice of process. 37.  By an interlocutory judgment of 17 September 2002 the court stayed the proceedings and submitted the case to the Constitutional Court for review. On 11 February 2003 the Constitutional Court ruled that the above‑mentioned provisions did not contravene the Constitution. 38.  In March 2003 the trial was resumed. The ensuing hearings were adjourned several times prior to October 2003 owing to an expert witness’s failure to submit a court-ordered report. 39.  On 18 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The applicant appealed on points of law. 40.  On 27 January 2005 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest allowed the appeal on points of law, ruling that the expert report relied on by the court had been conducted in the applicant’s absence, thus rendering the judgment void. The case was therefore sent back for retrial on appeal. 41.  The case was registered before the Bucharest County Court and was adjourned on several occasions owing either to requests filed by the plaintiffs to have the panel of judges removed or pending the receipt of documents from other courts. 42.  On 28 October 2005 the Bucharest County Court allowed the appeal, quashed the first-instance court’s decision of 13 December 2001 for failure on the part of the lower court to examine a claim filed by the applicant, and sent the case back for a fresh examination on the merits. 43.  On 21 June 2006 the Bucharest District Court no. 6 allowed the action in part, ruling on the individual shares of property to be allotted to the parties. The decision was upheld on appeal on 15 November 2006 and on appeal on points of law on 29 March 2007. 44.  On an unspecified date, enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment regarding the division of the property were initiated. On 7 September 2011 the bailiff declared that he was unable to enforce the judgment. A complaint concerning the execution of the judgment is currently pending at first instance before the Bucharest District Court no. 6. 45.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bucharest. 46.  On 4 May 1998 she was summoned to the police headquarters in Bucharest to be questioned on suspicion of misconduct in public office. She was brought to trial by a bill of indictment lodged with the Bucharest District Court no. 1 on 30 June 1998. 47.  While examining the evidence, the district court decided to disregard the forensic accounting report submitted by the prosecution on the ground that not all the defendants had been present when the accounts had been examined. 48.  On 26 May 1999 the district court commissioned a new forensic accounting report. The hearing was adjourned twice pending the submission of the report, which was eventually submitted in November 1999. 49.  On 24 May 2000 the district court dismissed the State’s civil claim as time-barred. 50.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant was convicted of misconduct in public office and sentenced to a one-year prison sentence with a stay of execution. 51.  A notice of appeal was filed with the Bucharest County Court with respect to both the criminal and the civil parts of the judgment. 52.  On 29 June 2001 the county court upheld the first-instance court decision under its criminal head, and ordered the retrial of the case under the civil head. 53.  On 13 December 2001 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law in respect of the criminal conviction. 54.  On 31 May 2002 Bucharest District Court no. 1. allowed the civil action in part. 55.  Following the lodging of an appeal in June 2002, the Bucharest County Court scheduled twenty-two hearings pending the submission of documents and information by the Ministry of Public Finance and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 56.  On 8 November 2004 the Bucharest County Court allowed the appeal and altered the lower court’s judgment by increasing the amounts of compensation awarded. 57.  On 28 January 2005 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest allowed an appeal on points of law and set aside the decision on appeal of 29 June 2001 for insufficient evidence with respect to the amount of damages awarded. The case was referred for a new trial on appeal. 58.  The hearings listed for the retrial were adjourned on seventeen occasions for improper service of process and pending the receipt of documents and information from the public authorities. 59.  On 9 September 2005 the court imposed a fine on the chief prosecutor for failure to submit court-ordered documents. The latter were eventually submitted to the court nineteen months later. 60.  On 23 March 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. It thus upheld the first-instance decision of 31 May 2002. An appeal on points of law was lodged against the decision in respect of both its criminal and civil aspects. 61.  By a final decision of 11 May 2007 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest dismissed the appeal on points of law.