4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Košice. 5.  At the beginning of August 1994 the applicant’s wife left the applicant together with their two children. She sought a divorce from the applicant. Later the girl born to the couple started living with the applicant. The following relevant events occurred and decisions were taken in the case. 6.  On 2 September 1994 the applicant’s wife brought proceedings with a view to determining the parental obligations in respect of the two children born to her and the applicant. 7.  In December 1994 the Košice II District Court appointed a guardian to represent the children in the proceedings. It further requested information about the parents’ income and about the reputation of the plaintiff. 8.  The court heard the parties on 20 January 1995. It decided to obtain further information. The information was submitted in the course of February and March 1995. 9.  On 13 July 1995 the applicant claimed that the court should determine his right to meet his son. He also claimed that the children should be placed in his custody. 10.  On 2 August 1995 the District Court instructed an expert in psychology to submit an opinion. Both the applicant and his wife challenged the decision concerning an advance payment of the expert’s costs. The file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 21 September 1995. The Regional Court decided on the appeals on 28 December 1995. 11.  The District Court sent the file to the expert on 7 March 1996. The expert submitted her opinion on 3 April 1996. 12.  On 26 April 1996 the District Court requested further information concerning the income of the parents. It held a hearing on 5 June 1996. 13.  On 10 June 1996 the Košice II District Court decided that the girl born in 1984 should be in the custody of the applicant and the boy born in 1986 in the custody of his mother. It ordered the applicant to pay maintenance in respect of his son with effect from 1 August 1994 and decided on the parents’ right of access to the child in the other spouse’s custody. 14.  On 8 July 1996 the applicant appealed and requested that the case should be dealt with by an appellate court in a different region. On 9 August 1996 the file was submitted to the Regional Court. After the Regional Court judges had made written comments on the applicant’s objection, the file was submitted, on 27 November 1996, to the Supreme Court. On 17 December 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the request as there was no indication that the Košice Regional Court judges by whom the case fell to be examined lacked impartiality. On 28 January 1997 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request, based on the same arguments, for exclusion of the District Court judge dealing with the case. 15.  On 10 April 1997 the District Court asked the applicant’s employer to update information on the applicant’s income. On 15 April 1997 the District Court transmitted the applicant’s appeal to his wife with a request for comments. After further information was obtained from the plaintiff, the file was transferred to the appellate court on 6 May 1997. 16.  On 2 September 1997 a public prosecutor decided to join the proceedings. 17.  On 15 January 1998 the Košice Regional Court asked an administrative authority for information about the applicant’s son. The authority replied on 16 February 1998. 18.  On 23 February 1998 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the custody of the children and the parents’ right of access to the child placed in the other parent’s custody. It further quashed the District Court’s judgment to the extent that it concerned the maintenance due from the parents and the costs of the proceedings. The Regional Court instructed the District Court to take further evidence, in particular as regards the income of the applicant’s wife. The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 April 1998. 19.  On 31 March 1998 the District Court made inquiries with a view to establishing the income of the parents. Replies were submitted in the course of April 1998. 20.  On 10 September 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 28 October 1998. It further asked for an update on the parents’ income after 1 April 1998. 21.  On 28 October 1998 the Košice II District Court delivered a judgment in which it determined the parents’ obligation to pay maintenance in respect of the child in the other parent’s custody. 22.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant appealed alleging that the first instance court had failed to correctly establish the relevant facts. He further challenged the Košice Regional Court judges. 23.  On 11 January 1999 the District Court transmitted the file to the Regional Court in Košice for a decision on the appeal. On 12 April 1999 the Regional Court heard the applicant with a view to clarifying the contents of his submissions. The applicant informed the court that he maintained both his appeal and the request for exclusion of judges. On 12 May 1999 the file was transmitted to the Supreme Court for a decision on the request for exclusion of judges. The Supreme Court returned the file to the Regional Court on 28 June 1999 with the instruction that the applicant should specify his objection. The applicant submitted further explanation on the issue on 14 July 1999. The file was again sent to the Supreme Court on 13 September 1999 after the Regional Court judges concerned had submitted comments on the applicant’s allegation. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s objection on 4 October 1999. 24.  On 19 October 1999 the Regional Court asked for further information about the parents’ income. 25.  On 20 December 1999 the Košice Regional Court modified the District Court’s judgment of 28 October 1998 in that it ordered the parents to pay specific sums in maintenance of the respective child in the other parent’s custody. The Regional Court further quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the payment of the sums which the parents owed in respect of the maintenance of their children for the past period. It instructed the District Court to take further evidence in that respect. 26.  On 24 February 2000 the District Court made inquiries with a view to establishing the relevant facts. 27.  In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2000 the Košice II District Court allowed the applicant and his former wife to pay the outstanding maintenance in respect of their children by monthly instalments. The judgment was served on 28 March 2000. 28.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant appealed. 29.  In the course of May 2000 the District Court obtained further evidence. On 12 June 2000 it submitted the file to the Košice Regional Court. 30.  On 22 January 2001 the Regional Court made inquiries on the parents’ income after 1 May 2000. 31.  On 28 February 2001 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 13 March 2000. 32.  On 14 September 1994 the applicant’s wife sought a divorce from her husband. In December 1994 the Košice II District Court took several procedural steps. On 3 January 1995 the applicant informed the court that he disagreed with the reasons for the divorce as set out in his wife’s claim. 33.  On 1 February 1995 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision on appointment of a guardian to represent the interests of his son. The file was transmitted to the appellate court on 21 February 1995. On 27 March 1995 the Košice Regional Court decided to send the case to the District Court as it had interpreted the applicant’s submission as a request for an expert opinion to be ordered. The file was returned to the District Court on 22 June 1995. 34.  On 14 March 1996 the District Court made inquiries about the situation of the parents and their children. 35.  On 16 April 1996 the District Court heard the parents. The applicant stated that he agreed to the divorce and claimed that he should be granted the right to educate the children. On 17 May 1996 the case was adjourned as the parties had not appeared. 36.  Hearings were held on 2 July and on 8 October 1996. On the latter date the applicant challenged the judges of both the District Court and the Regional Court. 37.  On 21 May 1997 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 10 June 1997. On 29 May 1997 the applicant requested that the case should be dealt with by a different judge. On 10 June 1997 the District Court adjourned the case and decided to transmit the applicant’s objection to the Regional Court. 38.  On 27 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to the District Court judge. 39.  On 19 December 1997 and on 21 January 1998 the District Court judge sought to join to the divorce proceedings file the file related to the paternity rights proceedings. The requested file was not available, as appellate proceedings in that case were still pending. 40.  On 18 March 1998 the District Court made inquiries about the parents’ income. 41.  A hearing was held on 7 April 1998. The case was adjourned as the court decided to obtain further evidence. On 28 April 1998 the case was adjourned due to the absence of the children’s guardian. 42.  On 18 May 1998 the applicant challenged the District Court judge. On 16 July 1998 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court indicating that the applicant’s objection was similar to that on which it had decided on 27 October 1997. 43.  On 11 September 1998 the applicant informed the District Court that he would not appear at the hearing scheduled for 29 September 1998 as the court had acted contrary to his human rights. The applicant’s wife informed the court that she could not attend. On 29 September 1998 the case was therefore adjourned. 44.  A hearing was held on 28 October 1998. The court decided to obtain further information. The applicant’s representative was absent and the applicant refused to make any statements. 45.  On 17 November 1998 the Košice II District Court granted the applicant and his wife a divorce. It further decided that custody of the son born to the couple in 1986 should be granted to the mother. As to the daughter born to the couple in 1984, the court granted custody to the applicant. 46.  The District Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 15 December 1998. The applicant filed an appeal against it on 20 January 1999. The plaintiff submitted her observations on 9 February 1999. 47.  On 21 April 1999 the Košice Regional Court rejected the appeal without examining the merits of the case as it had been lodged after the expiry of the fifteen days’ time-limit laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. It also dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 5 March 1999 on fees for the appellate proceedings.