4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Rivne. 5.  In July 1997 Mr Y. (a private individual) lodged a civil claim against the applicant in a dispute over a house and a plot of land. The applicant lodged a counter-claim against Mr Y., some other private individuals and the local authorities seeking invalidation of several contracts of gift of parts of the house at issue and declaration of his title to premises he had built in that house. 6.  On 3 July 1998 the Rivne Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 30 July 1998 it renewed the applicant's procedural time-limits for lodging his appeal in cassation against the above judgment and on 2 November 1998 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment having remitted the case for fresh consideration. 7.  On 1 December 2005 the Rivne Court rejected the claim of Mr Y. as unsubstantiated, allowed the applicant's counter-claim to the extent that he requested invalidation of the contracts of gift and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim concerning declaration of title to the aforementioned premises. 8.  On 13 April 2006 the Rivne Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment having declared the applicant's title to part of the household and the plot of land. 9.  On 6 May 2006 and 23 October 2008 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the requests of the applicant and the local prosecutor (the latter acting in the applicant's interests) for leave to appeal in cassation. 10.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant twice amended or specified his claim; five hearings were adjourned upon his or his representative's requests or due to his or his representative's failure to appear; nine hearings were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant's part protracted the proceedings to approximately one and a half years. Twenty three further hearings were adjourned due to the other party's and third parties' failure to appear or upon their requests and because of the absence or illness of a judge; fifteen hearings were adjourned for unspecified reasons. 11.  Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of his case in the light of the newly-discovered circumstances.