8.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Otepää. 9.  On 2 September 1977 he married a woman with whom he already had a son, born in 1962. On 3 February 1993 their son died. 10.  On 3 February 1994 the applicant's wife filed with the Valga County Court (Valga Maakohus) an action for divorce and division of marital property, which included agricultural assets. 11.  On 23 February 1994 the applicant filed against her an action for division of the inheritance of their son. The inheritance consisted of a house with adjacent buildings and two cars. 12.  On 12 April 1994 the claims were joined by the court. 13.  On 21 April 1994 the County Court held a hearing in the case and scheduled a further hearing for 24 May 1994. 14.  On 9 May 1994 the County Court ordered, at the request of the applicant's wife, attachment of the property in order to ensure its preservation pending the resolution of her civil action. 
The attachment was carried out by the court's bailiffs on 10 and 26 May 1994. 15.  On 24 May 1994 the applicant was taken into custody in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him (see below). 16.  Following his release from custody on 20 December 1994 the applicant filed, on 5 April 1995, an application with the County Court requesting that his civil case be transferred to another court alleging that the judge and the court were not impartial. 17.  On 25 April 1995 the County Court imposed a fine on the applicant for having used insulting language in respect of the court both in his transfer application and at the hearings. 18.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant requested that he be exempted from the fine. On 3 May 1995 the judge hearing the case withdrew. On 26 May 1995 the applicant informed the court that he had lost confidence in it and requested that all members of the court step down. 19.  By a decision of 30 May 1995 the County Court dismissed both his requests. The decision was confirmed by the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus) on 27 December 1995. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) was refused on 13 March 1996. 20.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant filed an action for divorce. 21.  On 12 March 1997 and 30 September 1997 the judges of the Valga County Court withdrew from examining the applicant's and his wife's civil actions. In their decisions it was noted that that the applicant's written submissions, in particular that of April 1995, were disrespectful of the court and hampered an objective examination of the cases. 22.  On 29 October 1997 the cases were transferred by a higher court to the Viljandi County Court (Viljandi Maakohus) which on 3 November 1997 scheduled a hearing for 10 February 1998.
On that day the hearing was adjourned as the parties failed to appear before the court. The applicant had not informed the court of the reasons for his failure to attend. His wife could not attend as she was hospitalised from 19 January 1998 until 6 February 1998. 23.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant asked the court to set a hearing date. 24.  On 24 August 1998 the hearing was adjourned since, according to a medical certificate presented to the court, the state of health of the applicant's wife did not allow her to take part in it and it was not possible to decide on the divorce request without her presence. 25.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant requested the court to hear the case without the presence his wife and to inquire whether she would agree to this.
In response to its inquiry of 8 October 1998 about the condition of health of the applicant's wife, the court was informed that she had still to receive treatment. 26.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant's lawyer requested that the court fix a hearing date. 27.  On 16 February 1999 the applicant's wife asked for the adjournment of a hearing scheduled for 22 February 1999 as her state of health had deteriorated and she needed to be hospitalised.
At the hearing on 22 February 1999, despite the applicant's request to proceed with the case, the court decided that the presence of the applicant's wife was necessary. Accordingly, it adjourned the hearing. 28.  On 16 March 1999 the applicant's wife requested a higher court to transfer the case to the Tartu County Court, apparently because it was closer to her place of residence. Her request was refused in April 1999. 29.  By a judgment of 1 December 1999 the Viljandi County Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and his wife. At the applicant's request it allowed him additional time to modify and specify his property claim, which he submitted to the court on 21 January 2000. 30.  In the continuing proceedings concerning division of property a hearing scheduled for 4 September 2000 was adjourned at the request of both parties who wanted to call certain witnesses. 
A hearing on 20 September 2000 was also adjourned as the parties requested that additional witnesses be heard. 31.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the removal of the judge. 32.  A hearing took place on 20 November 2000. 33.  By a judgment of 4 December 2000 the Viljandi County Court rejected the applicant's ex-wife's action for division of marital property for lack of proof that such property existed and accepted part of the applicant's claim concerning the inheritance of their son. The inheritance was divided up so that the applicant was to receive one of the cars and his ex-wife the rest of the property. 34.  On 20 December 2000 the applicant, being dissatisfied with the way the inheritance was divided by the court, filed an appeal against the judgment with the Tartu Court of Appeal which, on 30 April 2001, quashed in part the County Court judgment and remitted the claim concerning the division of inheritance to it for a new examination.
On 4 December 2001 the applicant's former wife filed a counteraction claiming part ownership of the house left by their son. She also requested the County Court to take an interim measure ordering the applicant not to dispose of the property pending the outcome of the proceedings. By a decision of 18 March 2002 the County Court allowed the request.
On 25 March 2002 the applicant replied in writing to his ex-wife's claim. 35.  On 27 March 2002 the County Court held a preliminary hearing. It requested the parties to submit additional evidence by 20 May 2002 and scheduled a further hearing for 20 June 2002.
As the applicant's former wife could not submit the requested evidence by the set date for health reasons, she requested an extension of the time-limit.
On 23 and 28 May 2002 the applicant filed further observations. 36.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant's ex-wife requested a postponement for one month of the hearing scheduled for the following day due to her illness. 37.  On 20 June 2002 the County Court decided to adjourn the case for an indefinite period. 38.  In September 2002 the applicant and his ex-wife filed further observations 39.  On 2 December 2002 the County Court held another preliminary hearing where it heard 7 witnesses. As the parties requested that additional witnesses be heard the court scheduled a further hearing for 2 April 2003. 40.  At the hearing on 2 April 2003 the County Court heard 3 more witnesses. Each party requested however the hearing of another witness from their side, who both lived in different towns and were of poor health and advanced age. The court allowed their request and adjourned the examination of the case until these witnesses were heard. 41.  The applicant's former wife's witness was to be heard on 25 April 2003 in Otepää. However, the date did not suit the witness and her questioning was postponed. 
On 15 May 2003 the Viljandi County Court requested that the applicant's witness be examined by the City Court in Tallinn where the witness was living. In its request the County Court noted that a difficulty with the case was that it involved circumstances dating back several decades, complicating the collection of evidence. 42.  On 20 May 1994 the Valga police, acting upon an application of the applicant's wife alleging ill-treatment by her husband, initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for having caused his wife grievous bodily harm. 43.  On 24 May 1994, pursuant to a court order, the applicant was taken into custody.
On 1 June 1994 the applicant was additionally charged with assault in respect of two other persons as well as unlawful possession of a firearm. 44.  On 2 July 1994 the applicant was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination and to be committed to a hospital. The examination took place from 1 September 1994 until 2 November 1994 in the Tallinn Psychiatric Hospital which declared him mentally fit. 45.  The applicant was released from custody on 20 December 1994 and on 15 May 1995 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on the ground that the acts committed by him did not amount to a criminal offence and that the assault victims did not wish to pursue the charges. 46.  Upon his release from custody in December 1994 the applicant discovered that some of his property, which had been placed in his wife's care following the court order of 9 May 1994, had gone missing.
On 30 November 1995 the applicant filed with the Tartu City Court (Tartu Linnakohus) a civil action against the Government claiming compensation for damage suffered as a result of his unlawful detention. In particular, he claimed moral damages for his arrest and placement in a psychiatric hospital as well as damages for lost property and for the loss of profit he would have made from his farming activities. 47.  By judgment of 2 May 1997 the City Court allowed in part the applicant's lawsuit. It rejected the applicant's claim concerning the loss of property items on the grounds of lack of proof that the loss was due to the actions or omissions of the authorities. It noted that it was the applicant's wife who had been left in charge of the common property and that the proceedings for its division were still pending. It also rejected the claim concerning loss of profit. 48.  On 27 January 1998 the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the first instance court concerning the loss of property items. It revoked the judgment with respect to the claim of loss of profit and remitted it to the City Court for a new consideration. It also reduced the amount of moral damages payable to the applicant.
On 22 April 1998 the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal. 49.  Subsequently, the applicant filed new claims for damages against the Government in connection with his arrest and loss of property. Proceedings in respect of these claims were all terminated on the grounds that the matter had already been decided by a final judgment. 50.  The applicant also brought civil proceedings against the judge who had authorised the attachment of property on 9 May 1994, the police investigator involved in his criminal case and his wife, claiming compensation for damage caused to the property by their unlawful acts. On 18 December 2000 the Võru County Court (Võru Maakohus), in order to establish a list of the applicant's property and the extent of possible damage, suspended the proceedings pending the entry into force of the judgment of the Viljandi County Court concerning the division of marital and inheritance property between the applicant and his wife.