8.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia. 9.  On 18 September 1992 the applicant filed a civil action with the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu), seeking damages for his destroyed property from an insurance company - C.O. The applicant claimed that an unknown person had set fire in his summer house in Pirovac, Croatia, and had also appropriated his property from the house. 10.  Before 5 November 1997, i.e., the date of the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Croatia, the first instance court held three hearings. 11.  At the hearing on 2 December 1997 the defendant asked the court to order the Šibenik Police Department (Policijska uprava Šibenska) to submit a report concerning the applicant's claim.
On 5 December 1997 the court ordered the Šibenik Police Department and the defendant's office in Šibenik to submit information relevant for the applicant's claim. Furthermore, the court ordered the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku) to inform it about criminal reports on arson submitted in the period relevant for the applicant's claim.
The defendant's office in Šibenik replied on 22 December 1997, the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office on 2 January 1998 and the Šibenik Police Department on 12 January 1998. 12.  According to the Government the hearing scheduled for 12 May 1998 was adjourned because the applicant's counsel had not received the notice of the hearing date.
According to the applicant the hearing on 12 May 1998 was held in his presence. The defendant repeated its request from the previous hearing that the court order the Šibenik Police Department to submit a report relevant for the applicant's claim. The applicant replied that the defendant was already in possession of that report and accused the defendant's counsel of lying. The judge left the courtroom. 13.  According to the Government, since neither the applicant nor his counsel, although notified, appeared at the hearing scheduled for 6 October 1998 the court stayed the proceedings (mirovanje postupka).
According to the applicant he had never been notified of the hearing date. 14.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant's counsel requested the court to resume the proceedings. 15.  On 21 January 1999 the Karlovac Municipal Court struck out the applicant's claim. On 3 February 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 March 1999 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) quashed the first instance decision and remitted the case to the Karlovac Municipal Court. 16.  It appears that the applicant filed a motion requesting that the presiding judge be removed from the case. On 5 July 1999 the President of the Karlovac Municipal Court rejected the request. 17.  At the hearing on 5 October 1999 the court invited the defendant to submit its observations on the County Court's decision of 17 March 1999 within 30 days.
On 12 October 1999 the defendant filed its submissions. 18.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant increased the sum sought. 19.  At the next hearing on 17 May 2000 the court decided that it would order the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office to submit further information concerning the arson in the applicant's house.
On 9 June 2000 the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office submitted the requested information. 20.  According to the Government, on 21 July 2000 the court scheduled the next hearing for 10 October 2000, but the applicant failed to collect the notice of the hearing date sent to him by registered mail. On 25 August 2000 the court unsuccessfully attempted another delivery of the notice of the hearing date to the applicant. 21.  According to the applicant, he had never received the notices for the above hearings. 22.  On 25 September 2000 the defendant filed additional submissions.
On 27 September 2000 the court sent the defendant's submissions to the applicant and invited him to file his reply within eight days.
On 8 October 2000 the applicant filed his reply. 23.  On 16 November 2000 the applicant filed his additional submissions. According to the Government, since he had failed to submit a copy for the defendant, on 3 January 2001 the court ordered him to submit another copy.
According to the applicant he had already sent a copy of his submissions directly to the defendant.
On 9 February 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the court refusing to submit another copy of his submissions of 16 November 2000. 24.  On 19 March 2001 the court invited the defendant to submit its inner regulations and other information concerning the applicant's claim. 25.  On 9 April 2001 the court invited the Šibenik Police Department to inform it whether there were any war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 26.  On 12 April 2001 the defendant submitted its inner regulations. 27.  On 8 June 2001 the court invited the defendant to submit copies of the photographs depicting the remnants of the applicant's house after destruction and also their estimation of damages.
On 21 June 2001 the defendant submitted the requested documentation.
On 29 June 2001 the court sent the copy of that documentation to the applicant. 28.  At the hearing on 10 July 2001 the court decided to invite the Šibenik Warning and Information Centre (Centar za obavještavnje i uzbunjivanje u Šibeniku) to inform it whether there were any war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 29.  On 23 July 2001 the defendant asked the court to extend the time limit for its submissions concerning a possible settlement with the applicant. 30.  On 2 August 2001 the Ministry of Defence Administration for Communications (Uprava za komunikacije Ministarstva obrane) informed the court that on 4 May 1992 there were no war operations in the area where the applicant's house is situated. 31.  On 16 October 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) asked that the case-file be sent to it in order to decide upon the applicant's request that the case be heard before another court. 32.  On 17 October 2001 the Karlovac Municipal Court held a hearing. The applicant asked that the court adopt a judgment. It was decided that the case-file would not be transferred to the Supreme Court. The proceedings were concluded and the court adopted judgment rejecting the applicant's claim. 33.  On 10 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 6 February 2002 the Karlovac County Court rejected the applicant's appeal.