4.  Until 1987 the applicant occupied a flat with his wife. In that year he moved out. On 28 June 1989 they divorced. On 16 September 1989 the applicant's former wife died. 5.  On 12 February 1990 the applicant issued proceedings against his son and daughter in the Plovdiv District Court. He requested partition of his deceased former wife's estate. The estate allegedly consisted of the above‑mentioned flat, a garage, a car and a number of chattels. 6.  On 7 March 1990 the proceedings were stayed to await the outcome of an already pending suit between the applicant and his former wife. This suit, in which, after her death, the applicant's former wife had been replaced by their son and daughter, concerned her claim to exclusive title to the flat. The suit ended in July 1991 with a ruling that the flat was joint marital property of the applicant and of his former wife. Accordingly, in August 1991 the partition proceedings were resumed. 7.  At the invitation of the court, in September and November 1991 the applicant gave further particulars of his claims. 8.  Out of seven hearings listed for various dates between December 1991 and September 1992, three were adjourned on account of improper summoning of the respondents and a further two because of their absence. 9.  The Plovdiv District Court gave judgment on 16 September 1992, allowing the partition of the flat and of a number of chattels, but refusing the partition of the car and of certain other chattels. The court also determined the share of each of the co‑owners. 10.  All three litigants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. 11.  In a judgment of 25 January 1993 the Plovdiv Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal, additionally allowing the partition of the car and of certain other chattels. It dismissed the respondents' appeal in so far as it concerned the flat, but allowed it in respect of certain chattels, excluding them from the partition. It decided to proceed on the merits and determine each party's share of the car and of the chattels whose partition it had additionally allowed. 12.  After holding a hearing on 10 March 1993, in a judgment of 17 March 1993 the Plovdiv Regional Court allowed the partition of the car, but not of the additional chattels. It determined the parties' shares of the car and ordered an expert report on its value. 13.  The Plovdiv District Court listed a hearing for 9 June 1993. However, the applicant's son was absent and the expert report had not been filed in due time before the hearing. The court accordingly only took note of the applicant's and his daughter's requests to be allotted the entire flat and of the applicant's claims for indemnification for the exclusive use of the flat and of the car by his son and daughter, as well as for wear of the car, and adjourned the case. 14.  A hearing was held on 19 October 1993. The court admitted two expert reports in evidence. The applicant's son challenged the reports and requested a fresh one. The court agreed and adjourned the case. 15.  The next hearing took place on 9 December 1993. The applicant's son was absent; so was one expert. 16.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant asked the court to provisionally allow him to use the flat, arguing that because of his low income it was very hard for him to pay the rent for a flat which he was leasing. 17.  The court held a hearing on 22 March 1994. The applicant's son did not show up. The court admitted the new expert report in evidence. The applicant repeated his request to be allowed to provisionally use the flat. The court directed that the applicant's son be notified about the applicant's request and adjourned the case. 18.  A hearing took place on 13 April 1994, despite a request by the applicant's son for an adjournment. 19.  In a judgment of 21 April 1994 the Plovdiv District Court allotted the flat to the applicant, and ordered him to pay his son and his daughter certain amounts for their shares of it. The court allotted the garage to the applicant's daughter and ordered her to pay the applicant's son a certain amount for his share. It also allotted the car to the applicant's son and made a scheme for the repartition of the remainder of the chattels. The court went on to disallow the applicant's and his daughter's claims for indemnification for the use of the flat and of the car. Finally, it discontinued the examination of the applicant's claim for wear of the car, holding that it was not sufficiently connected with the main subject‑matter of the case. 20.  Both the applicant and his son appealed. 21.  After holding a hearing on 27 June 1994, in a decision of 4 July 1994 the Plovdiv Regional Court held that the Plovdiv District Court had erred by discontinuing the examination of the claim for wear of the car. It remitted the case to that court with instructions to supplement its judgment by ruling on this claim and then re‑send the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court for examination of the appeals against the other parts of the judgment. 22.  After holding two hearings on 14 September and 15 December 1994, in a judgment of 21 December 1994 the Plovdiv District Court found that by discontinuing the examination of the claim for wear of the car, it had in fact ruled on it. There was therefore no need for it to supplement its judgment of 21 April 1994. 23.  The applicant appealed against this latter judgment. The applicant's son again appealed against the judgment of 21 April 1994. 24.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 3 April 1995 and in a judgment of 10 April 1995 reversed the Plovdiv District Court's ruling concerning the applicant's claim for indemnification for the use of the flat and the car. It ordered his son and daughter to pay him certain amounts under this head. It then examined the claim for wear of the car on the merits and dismissed it. It also quashed the lower court's ruling concerning the valuation of the flat, and said that it would determine the flat's value – and thus the sums due by the applicant to his son and daughter – after conducting proceedings on the merits and receiving an expert's opinion on the issue. 25.  The expert report was not ready until February 1996 because in September and December 1995 two experts appointed by the court withdrew from the case and had to be replaced. The report was admitted in evidence on 28 February 1996. 26.  In a judgment of 3 May 1996 the Plovdiv Regional Court assessed the value of the flat and determined the amounts which the applicant had to pay his son and his daughter for their respective shares of it. 27.  On 29 May 1996 the applicant was issued a writ of execution on the basis of the Plovdiv District Court's judgment of 21 April 1994 whereby the flat had been allotted to him (see paragraph 19 above). After several unsuccessful attempts, the writ was executed by an enforcement judge on 20 October 1997. However, as the flat was in very bad repair, the applicant continued to live elsewhere and decided to lease it out. 28.  In early 1998 the applicant's son asked the Plovdiv District Court to annul the writ of execution and set its enforcement aside. His request was rejected on 7 March 1998 and his ensuing appeal was dismissed by the Plovdiv Regional Court in a final decision of 10 June 1998. 29.  Meanwhile, the proceedings concerning the chattels were continuing in the Plovdiv District Court. 30.  On 19 September 1996 the court ordered an expert report on the chattels' value. However, the report proved impossible to draw up, as during the following year the applicant's son was refusing the experts access to the chattels. The court repeatedly ordered him to give them such access, under pain of a fine, but apparently did not fine him. In June and September 1997 the experts eventually managed to prepare two reports without inspecting the chattels. The court admitted them in evidence. On 24 September 1997 the court instructed an expert to propose how to allocate the chattels to each of the litigants in proportion to their shares. 31.  In the meantime, two hearings listed for 7 November 1996 and 20 May 1997 failed to take place because the applicant's son had not been duly summoned. 32.  At a hearing held on 14 October 1997 the court admitted the expert's proposal in evidence. However, it adjourned the case to allow the newly retained lawyer of the applicant's son to acquaint herself with it. 33.  After hearing the parties on 20 October 1997, in a judgment of 29 October 1997 the Plovdiv District Court finally determined the repartition of the chattels in four lots, in line with the expert's proposal. 34.  The applicant's son lodged two appeals. He challenged all prior judgments of the Plovdiv District Court and of the Plovdiv Regional Court. The Plovdiv District Court apparently did not process one of the appeals. Upon the appeal of the applicant's son, on 4 November 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case to the Plovdiv District Court with instructions to send copies of all appeals to the parties to the case, and, having received their replies, re-send the case to it. 35.  After holding on a hearing on 29 March 1999, in a judgment of 2 June 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court found the applicant's son's appeals partly inadmissible and partly ill‑founded. 36.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant's son appealed on points of law. The Supreme Court of Cassation heard the appeal on 5 December 2000 and on 4 June 2001 upheld the Plovdiv Regional Court's judgment. The case was then transmitted to the Plovdiv District Court for effecting the partition of the chattels by drawing lots. 37.  A hearing listed for 15 October 2001 failed to take place because applicant's son, not having been properly summoned, did not appear. 38.  At a hearing on 28 November 2001 the parties drew lots to determine which of the partitioned chattels should go to which co‑owner. In a judgment of the same date the Plovdiv District Court confirmed the repartition and concluded the proceedings. 39.  On an unspecified date in the first half of 2002 the applicant issued enforcement proceedings against his son and daughter. 40.  On 24 June 2002 an enforcement judge seized from the applicant's son a number of the chattels allotted to the applicant and delivered them to him. Noting that the remainder were missing, she attached a number of other chattels belonging to the applicant's son with a view to selling them and paying the applicant the monetary equivalent of the missing chattels. On 9 September 2002 the same judge attached a number of chattels belonging to the applicant's daughter and her husband with a view to selling them and satisfying the applicant's claim in respect of the chattels allotted to him. 41.  The parties do not provide further information about the unfolding of the enforcement proceedings. 42.  The applicant said that between April 2003 and October 2006 no steps had been taken for enforcing the Plovdiv District Court's judgment of 28 November 2001. In corroboration of his allegation he produced a certificate in which the enforcement judge stated that during that time the case file had been sent to the Plovdiv District Court, as it had been needed for the examination of a civil action pending before that court. 43.  At the time of the latest information from the parties (12 November 2006) the enforcement proceedings were still pending.