8.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Stade (Germany). 9.  On 3 May 1982 he was involved in an accident with a cyclist on the way to school and sustained injuries including a broken left arm. On 22 May 1982 he left hospital. He subsequently entered into negotiations with the cyclist’s liability insurers, who paid him a sum of approximately 12,500 euros (EUR) in respect of any damage he might have sustained. The accident insurers for Hanover City Council, the authority responsible for the applicant’s school, paid him a temporary disability pension (Verletzenrente) until the end of 1983. They also paid him approximately EUR 51,000 in compensation. 10.  The applicant subsequently instituted proceedings against the City Council’s accident insurers, in the course of which a considerable number of expert reports and medical opinions were produced.
In a judgment of 16 November 1989, the Lower Saxony Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht), which itself had asked experts in the fields of orthopaedic surgery, neurology and, at the applicant’s request, hand surgery to produce reports on his medical problems, acknowledged that he had become 20% permanently disabled as a result of the accident and was entitled to a pension on that account with effect from 1 June 1984. 11.  Since 1 July 1994, after falling on his left arm or hand in January 1993, the applicant has been in receipt of an occupational-disability pension of approximately EUR 800 per month. 12.  The applicant instituted a second set of proceedings against Hanover City Council’s accident insurers, seeking in particular the award of an increased pension. He submitted that the accident had caused him mental damage and a stomach disorder. In a judgment of 19 February 2001, the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim. It based its decision on two reports by experts in neuropsychiatry whom it had appointed during the proceedings, on a large number of other medical reports, some of which had been drawn up shortly after the accident, and on files from other administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the applicant. 13.  On 18 September 1989, after the negotiations aimed at securing increased payments had failed, the applicant brought an action against the cyclist’s insurance company in the Hanover Regional Court (Landgericht), in particular seeking damages and a monthly pension, among other claims. On 10 June 1991, after holding several hearings and taking evidence about the accident from four witnesses between July 1990 and March 1991, the Regional Court delivered a partial decision. It held that the applicant’s liability for the accident was limited to 20% and that he was entitled to damages for the remaining 80%. 14.  On 26 November 1992 the Celle Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed an appeal by the applicant. On 29 January 1993 the applicant appealed on points of law. He twice requested an extension of the time he had initially been allowed for filing his grounds of appeal. On 2 June 1993 the applicant’s new representative applied for a third extension until 14 July 1993. On 14 December 1993 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) dismissed the appeal. 15.  In March 1994 the proceedings for the assessment of the damages and the pension resumed in the Hanover Regional Court. The applicant was represented by counsel. On 18 April 1994 the court held a hearing. 16.  On 9 May 1994 it ordered an expert medical assessment. On 25 May 1994 the applicant applied for the three judges dealing with his case to withdraw, but his application was dismissed. On 19 July 1994 Hanover Medical School proposed a Professor B. to draw up the expert report that had been ordered. On 21 July 1994 the applicant appealed against the court’s decision of 9 May 1994. On 2 August 1994 the Celle Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. 17.  On 15 September 1994 the court appointed Professor B. as the expert. Professor B. informed the court that it would be preferable for the report to be drawn up by a specialist in accident surgery and that it was likely to take at least one year to produce. On 2 December 1994, following a reminder from the court, the applicant agreed to the appointment of a surgical expert. 18.  On 15 December 1994 a Professor T. was proposed. The applicant objected to his appointment on the ground that he was not a specialist hand surgeon (Handchirurg). On 6 February 1995 the court accordingly asked Professor B. to draw up the expert report. On 7 February 1995 the applicant informed the court that he agreed with the deadline set; he insisted, however, that there should not only be an expert assessment by a general surgeon but also one by a specialist hand surgeon. Professor B. informed the court that he was unable to draw up the report as requested because the fractures observed in the applicant’s forearm did not come within his field of expertise but were a matter for a specialist in traumatology or an orthopaedic surgeon. On 20 February 1995 the defendant proposed appointing Professor T. On 24 April 1995, following a reminder from the court, the applicant suggested appointing Professor B. or, failing that, a Professor B.-G. 19.  On 12 May 1995 the court appointed Professor T., who informed it that an additional assessment by a specialist hand surgeon was necessary and that it was likely to take at least one year to produce the report. On 28 July 1995 the court informed the applicant that Professor B. had refused to draw up the report and asked him whether Professor B.-G., whom he had suggested, had already drawn up an expert report on him. On 27 November 1995 the court informed the parties that Professor B.-G. had retired but that his successor, Professor P., would be appointed as expert. On 23 January 1996 Professor P. informed the court that it would take him nine to twelve months to draw up the report. 20.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant informed the court that the accident had caused him severe depression, and asked it to order an expert psychiatric assessment. 21.  On 10 June 1997 the court asked the expert how his report was progressing. The expert replied that the report would be ready in four to six weeks. On 22 August 1997 the court again contacted the expert. He initially replied that the report would be completed by the end of September but subsequently stated that, owing to an excessive workload, he would need a further month. Professor P.’s report was received at the court on 6 November 1997. The applicant criticised Professor P.’s work and requested that he submit an additional report. He also requested an expert assessment (Schmerzgutachten) of the pain he had felt since the accident. On 3 December 1997 the court granted the defendant company an extension of the time it had been allowed for filing observations on the report; it submitted its observations on 6 January 1998. On 27 April 1998 the applicant’s representatives informed the court that as their client had been ill they would not be able to submit their observations in reply until mid-May.
(b)  Second phase: failure to negotiate an out-of-court settlement 22.  On 31 August 1998 the applicant’s representatives informed the court that the parties had not been able to reach a partial friendly settlement. They subsequently began fresh out-of-court negotiations on a friendly settlement, asking on three successive occasions for the deadline to be put back. On 5 May 1999 they informed the court that the negotiations had failed and asked for the proceedings to be resumed. The defendant stated that the failure of the negotiations had been due to the applicant’s unreasonable demands. 23.  On 27 May 1999 the president of the division dealing with the case asked the parties to inform him whether they still wished to submit observations. In a note of 8 September 1999, the reporting judge stated that the proceedings had not been able to progress more quickly owing to an excessive workload and to certain priority cases. In a note of 23 December 1999 he made a similar observation, referring to a number of periods of leave, in particular sick-leave, in addition to the reasons stated previously. 24.  On 18 February 2000 the president of the division asked the parties to inform him whether they intended to submit any further observations. The applicant replied that negotiations for an out-of-court settlement could take until mid-May and that he reserved the right to submit further observations if they were unsuccessful. On 26 June 2000 he informed the court that the negotiations had failed and asked for an expert assessment of his total loss of earnings resulting from the accident. In support of that request, he submitted an expert psychiatric assessment that had been drawn up during the proceedings in the Social Court of Appeal (see paragraph 12 above). On 17 August 2000 the defendant informed the court that the negotiations had failed because the applicant had refused to make payment of the sum negotiated conditional on the findings of an expert assessment.
(c)  Third phase: preparation of the case file and additional report 25.  On 17 October 2000 the applicant requested the court to deliver a decision promptly, seeing that the proceedings had already taken eighteen years. In support of his request he submitted an expert psychiatric assessment of his state of health. In a note of 19 January 2001, the court pointed out to him that the proceedings had been pending only since 18 September 1989. 26.  On 21 February 2001 the applicant revised his claim, which now concerned a lump sum of 702,122 German marks (DEM – approximately EUR 359,000) and a monthly pension of DEM 1,000. On 2 March 2001 the court assessed the value of the subject matter of the case at DEM 985,122. 27.  On 17 April 2001 the applicant asked the court when it would be holding a hearing. On 15 May 2001 the court set the case down for hearing on 9 July 2001 and asked the applicant to provide information, concerning in particular his alleged loss of earnings. It was important to establish his likely career path had the accident not taken place and the extent to which the physical injury from which he was now suffering was the direct consequence of the accident. 28.  On 9 July 2001, having obtained the parties’ consent at the hearing, the court decided to admit in evidence the file from the proceedings in the Social Court of Appeal. The file could not be forwarded immediately because it was at the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht). 29.  On 14 August 2001, at the applicant’s request, the court ordered Professor P. to supplement his expert report of 30 October 1997. He replied that it would take him at least ten months to do so. 30.  On 20 September 2001 the court asked the applicant to give his consent in writing to its consulting the file in the possession of the Federal Social Court. Pointing out that he was undergoing treatment abroad which was expected to take until mid-November, the applicant asked for an extension of the time allowed for his reply. On 26 October 2001 the court told him that he had not provided sufficient evidence of the injury to his forearm and asked him to inform it whether he intended to pursue his request for an assessment by a specialist hand surgeon. The applicant asked for a further extension of the time allowed for his reply. On 18 December 2001 he stated that he did not agree to the use in evidence of the file from the proceedings in the social courts and requested a further extension with regard to the expert surgical assessment. 31.  On 8 February 2002 the court ordered the applicant to submit a number of documents and asked Professor P. to draw up the additional report. In reply to two letters from the applicant it reminded him that he had requested the additional report himself. On 7 May 2002 the applicant submitted his observations, having twice requested further time to do so. On 24 May 2002 he personally informed the court by telephone that he no longer required the additional report and only wanted an assessment of his pain, on the ground that he was suffering from neurosis caused by the proceedings (Prozessneurose). 32.  On 28 May 2002 the court declared inadmissible an application for the judges to withdraw, which the applicant had lodged on 23 May 2002. 33.  On 29 May 2002 the court asked the applicant’s representatives for clarification as to the additional expert report. On 12 July 2002 they informed the court that their client no longer wished the report to be produced. 34.  On 1 August 2002 the President of the Regional Court asked to be sent the file in the applicant’s case. 35.  On 16 September 2002 the court decided to appoint a Professor X to draw up an expert report concerning in particular the onset and cause of the pain suffered by the applicant. It also requested the applicant to provide certain items of information. 36.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant again applied for the members of the court to withdraw. On 8 October 2002 he asked for an extension of the time allowed for submitting the information requested. On 22 October 2002 he objected to the expert who had been appointed, proposed another one (Dr J.), sought leave to consult the file and applied for a further extension of six weeks. On 29 October 2002 the court invited him to submit reasons for his objection to the expert, proposed other experts and gave him until 20 December 2002 to produce the information requested. 37.  On 12 November 2002 the applicant personally informed the court by telephone that he was unable to inspect the file because he had broken his arm. On 18 November 2002 the defendant proposed an expert. The applicant expressed the view that the expert proposed, not being a specialist in the field, was not competent to carry out an assessment of his pain, and asked the court to deliver a partial decision. 38.  On 5 December 2002 Dr J. informed the court that he would be unable to draw up a report before the end of 2003. On the same day the court appointed Professor X as expert and dismissed the applicant’s reservations as to his professional credentials. It pointed out that it was unable to give a partial decision. The applicant objected that Professor X had already acted as expert, and requested that an “interdisciplinary” report be produced in addition to the report on his pain. 39.  On 15 January 2003 the applicant applied for the reporting judge in his case to withdraw. 40.  On 3 March 2003 the president of the division dealing with the case held discussions with the parties’ representatives with a view to reaching a friendly settlement and scheduled a hearing to that end for 10 March 2003. At the hearing the applicant stated that he would not let Professor X examine him. The president asked him to stop telephoning the judges dealing with the case and stated that, with a view to speeding up the proceedings, he would not be so willing in future to accept requests to consult the file. On 2 May 2003 the court, in reply to a further request by the applicant, informed him that he could consult the file at the court’s registry but that, to avoid delays in dealing with the case, the file would not be sent to the registry of the District Court in Stade, his place of residence. 41.  On 16 May 2003 a division of the Regional Court dismissed three applications by the applicant for the reporting judge to withdraw. 42.  On 4 June 2003 the applicant again sought leave to consult the case file at the registry of the Stade District Court.
(d)  Fourth phase: appointment of a new expert 43.  On 11 June 2003, after learning that the applicant had instituted disciplinary proceedings against Professor X, the court appointed Professor W. to replace him as expert. On 25 June 2003 the applicant left a message for the president of the division on his answering machine, expressing his concerns about the choice of expert. The applicant’s representatives also expressed reservations as to Professor W.’s credentials and proposed another expert. The president of the division informed the parties that Professor W. had stated that he was prepared to draw up the report, and indicated that he was standing by his choice of expert despite the applicant’s reservations about him. 44.  On 16 September 2003 Hamburg-Eppendorf University Hospital informed the court that the applicant’s medical examination was scheduled for 23 October 2003. On 29 September 2003 Professor W. returned the file to the court and asked it to relieve him of his duties on the ground that the applicant had stated his opposition to the production of the report and had contacted the hospital’s legal department to tell them so. On the same day the court sent the file back to Professor W., asking him to wait and see whether the applicant kept his appointment for the medical examination. On 29 October 2003 Professor W. informed the court that he had been able to examine the applicant and asked whether a further expert assessment on pain therapy could be produced by a Professor Y. On 21 November 2003 the court ordered a further examination of the applicant by Professor Y. 45.  On 9 December 2003 Professor W.’s report was received at the court. The president of the division informed the expert that further explanations were necessary. On 26 February 2004 the hospital informed the court that a Dr M., from its psychiatric department, was prepared to examine the applicant. On 26 March 2004 Professor W. informed the court that he would be submitting his final conclusions in collaboration with Dr M. The applicant’s representatives proposed another expert who, in their opinion, was better qualified to examine their client. On 24 May 2004 the court eventually appointed a Dr W. as expert. Dr W. replied that the case was a difficult and complex one requiring approximately forty hours’ work and that he would not be able to submit the report until October 2004. On 14 June 2004 the court decided to ask the parties to pay advances on the fees for the production of the expert report, but the applicant refused to do so. His representatives objected to the decision of 14 June 2004 but paid the advances as requested. On 28 June 2004 the court dismissed the objection. 46.  On 19 July 2004 the court, in reply to a request by the applicant, decided not to supplement its decision of 16 September 2002 on the production of the expert report. 47.  On 10 January 2005 Dr W.’s report was received at the court. It was forwarded to the parties on 21 February 2005. On 8 March 2005 the applicant’s representatives requested an examination of their client by a different expert. 48.  On 5 April 2005 the court’s registry asked to be sent the file. 49.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant submitted an expert report he had himself commissioned from a Dr K.
(e)  Fifth phase: the Regional Court’s judgment 50.  On 6 October 2005 the court held a hearing at which Professor W. gave evidence and Dr W. and Dr K. were present. 51.  In a judgment of 31 October 2005, the court awarded the applicant a total of EUR 20,451.68 for non-pecuniary damage. Taking into account the payments already made after the accident, the defendant was required to pay the outstanding sum of EUR 12,015.36 under this head and EUR 417.93 for loss of earnings. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim and ordered him to pay 97% of his costs.
Relying on the expert reports ordered in the course of the proceedings, on the judgments of the Social Court of Appeal and on various other expert reports and medical opinions produced in separate proceedings, the court outlined the injuries sustained by the applicant in the accident and examined whether any other forms of damage, such as chronic pain and mental disorders, were attributable to the accident as he claimed them to be. It concluded that there was not a sufficiently established link between the accident and most of the damage alleged. In assessing non-pecuniary damage, the court had regard to the circumstances of the accident, the subsequent conduct of the parties and the relevant case-law of the Celle Court of Appeal. It pointed out that the length of the proceedings could be taken into account only in small measure because the defendant could not be held responsible for the fact that the applicant had not brought his claim until seven years after the accident, making it more difficult to adduce evidence, that he had refused to allow the file from the proceedings in the Social Court of Appeal to be used in evidence, and that he had objected on several occasions to the choice of experts appointed. 52.  The applicant subsequently applied to the Celle Court of Appeal for legal aid in order to appeal against the judgment. 53.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court, stating:
“The proceedings at first instance before the Hanover Regional Court in case no. 20 O 186/89 have lasted since 1989 and have irreparably destroyed my existence.
I am lodging a constitutional complaint on account of an infringement of Article 2 § 1 and Article 20 § 2 of the Basic Law because the excessive length of the proceedings is no longer compatible with the rule of law and I request the Court to find a breach of the law and of Article 839 of the Civil Code in that Article 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with.
Evidence: Hanover Regional Court, no. 20 O 186/89. Information: no. 1 BvR 352/2000.
Please inform me if you need any other documents.”
On 23 March 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court requested information on the state of the proceedings from the Regional Court, which informed it on 22 May 2001 that it had scheduled a hearing for 9 July 2001. On 22 June 2001 it sent the applicant the Regional Court’s reply. 54.  On 5 and 11 August 2001 the applicant filed additional observations. 55.  On 16 August 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, decided not to examine the applicant’s complaint (no. 1 BvR 1212/01). The decision, in which no reasons were given, stated:
“The complaint is not accepted for adjudication. No appeal lies against this decision.”
(b)  The second set of proceedings 56.  On 26 May 2002 the applicant again complained to the Federal Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings. His complaint, which referred to his previous one, was worded as follows:
“I, the undersigned, Mr Sürmeli, residing at ..., hereby lodge a constitutional complaint on account of a breach of the rule of law [Rechtsstaatsprinzip] by the Hanover Regional Court (no. 20 O 186/89), because the proceedings in that court continue to be delayed.” 57.  On 27 June 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, decided not to examine this new complaint (no. 1 BvR 1068/02. In its decision it stated:
“Since the requirements of section 93a(2) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act have not been satisfied, the constitutional complaint cannot be accepted for adjudication. It does not raise any issue of fundamental significance [grundsätzliche Bedeutung]. Nor is there any need to examine the complaint for the purpose of safeguarding the constitutional rights which the complainant alleges to have been infringed, since it does not have sufficient prospects of success. The complaint lacks substance in that it cannot be ascertained from the complainant’s observations whether the length of the proceedings [in the Hanover Regional Court] has exceeded a reasonable time.
In accordance with the third sentence of section 93d(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, no further reasons for this decision are necessary. No appeal lies against the decision.” 58.  On 27 July 2005 the registry of the Federal Constitutional Court informed the applicant that it was not possible to reopen the proceedings. 59.  On 23 May 2002 the applicant applied to the Hanover Regional Court for legal aid in order to bring an action for damages against the State on account of the excessive length of the proceedings in issue. 60.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court refused his application on the ground that the delays in the proceedings had not been attributable to the justice system but were due to the courts’ excessive workload. It added that the applicant had not provided sufficient details of the damage allegedly sustained. 61.  On 21 July 2003 the Celle Court of Appeal upheld that decision, basing its conclusion, in particular, on the Government’s observations in the present case before the Third Section of the Court, which the applicant had produced in the proceedings before it.