6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Maribor. 7.  On 10 May 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against a company, SCT, and the Ministry of Transport and Communications (“the MTC”) in the Maribor Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru) seeking compensation and restitutio in integrum in respect of damage caused by the construction of a motorway near real estate he owned. 8.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia. Thereafter, the (renamed) Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru) held four hearings in the case. The hearing held on 18 September 1995 was adjourned sine die in order for the applicant to submit further submissions. The next hearing scheduled for 27 January 1997 was called off at the applicant’s request due to a change in his legal representation. Subsequently, the hearing held on 9 April 1997 was adjourned sine die since the parties were given sixty days to reach an out-of-court settlement. On 20 October 1997 the applicant informed the court that the settlement had not been reached. The next hearing, held on 23 September 1998, was adjourned until 11 November 1998 (see paragraph 11 below) in order for the applicant to reply to the MTC’s late submissions. However, due to another change in his legal representation, the applicant failed to submit his reply.
 9.  During the proceedings, the court appointed three experts in construction science. The first expert, appointed on 10 August 1994, withdrew on 23 August 1994. The following day, the court appointed the second expert, who submitted a report on 22 December 1994. The third expert was appointed on 22 January 1998 and submitted a report on 23 May 1998. 10.  Between 22 January 1997 and 29 September 1998 the applicant submitted four preliminary written submissions. 11.  At the hearing held on 11 November 1998 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 January 1999. 12.  On 20 January 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). In his appeal, the applicant referred, inter alia, to the building permits obtained by the MTC in 1990 and 1991, which allegedly obliged the MTC to compensate the damage caused as a result of the construction work on the motorway.
On 5 June 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and remitted the respective part of the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. 13.  On 24 August 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the second-instance judgment. The appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 25 April 2002 due to non-exhaustion. 14.  Meanwhile, in the remitted part of the proceedings, the applicant lodged, between 2 October 2001 and 11 May 2004, six preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence. 15.  On 15 October 2001 the court held the first hearing in the remitted proceedings, which was then adjourned sine die. Although the reasons for the adjournment were not stated in the records of the hearing, it appears that the applicant asked the court to allow him a sixty-day time-limit to prepare his answer to the MTC’s preliminary written submissions of 11 October 2001 which he had received only at the hearing. He further asked the court to adjourn the hearing until the Constitutional Court had decided on his constitutional appeal (paragraph 13 above). At the same time he also made a request for the withdrawal of the sitting judge. That request was rejected on 7 December 2001. 16.  On 27 May 2003 the court forwarded a document concerning an assessment of certain plots of the relevant real estate to the parties. They submitted their pleadings in reply by 9 July 2003. 17.  On 21 October 2003 the court appointed another expert in construction science and an agricultural expert. The experts submitted their reports on 24 February and 25 March 2004 respectively. 19.  At the hearing held on 20 September 2004 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on him on 21 October 2004. 20.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court.
On 14 June 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 21.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 13 July 2006 the latter dismissed the appeal as unfounded in so far as the compensation was concerned and as inadmissible in respect of the remainder. 22.  On 7 November 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. The proceedings are currently pending before the Constitutional Court.