5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv. 6.  On 30 November 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners of a dwelling, purchased by the applicant's father form a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence in 1967, brought an action for restitution against the applicant and Ms P.P., as heirs of the applicant's father, seeking restitution and a declaration that the 1967 transaction was null and void. 7.  Between February 1993 and January 1997 at least sixteen hearings were held. At least four of them were adjourned due to improper summoning and one upon the applicant's request. 8.  In a judgment of 15 May 1997 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the claim. 9.  On appeal, at least six hearings were held before the Plovdiv Regional Court. One hearing was adjourned because the expert opinion had not been obtained in time, one was adjourned due to improper summoning, and one upon the applicant's request. 10.  In a judgment of 28 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld the previous court's judgement. 11.  On further appeal, on 10 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination due to unspecified procedural breaches. 12.  By a judgment of 30 November 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court set aside the judgment of 1997 and declared the plaintiffs owners of the disputed real estate. 13.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment. 14.  On an unspecified date the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” filed a request for reopening, claiming that under the relevant legislation it should have been a party to the proceedings as a successor of the relevant subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence. 15.  On 14 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted reopening, set aside the judgment of 23 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court for new examination. The court held that in February 2000 the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” had succeeded the subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, which had been constituted as a party in the proceedings in 1993, and therefore should have been summoned in its stead. 16.  By a judgment of 16 December 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court again declared the plaintiffs owners of the real estate. On 17 April 2006 the applicant appealed. 17.  By a final judgment of 13 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment and rejected the plaintiffs' claims, thus deciding the case in favour of the applicant. 18.  The number of hearings held between December 1999 and April 2003 and between May 2004 and April 2007 is not clear. 19.  On 6 June 2007 the plaintiffs filed a request for reopening. 20.  By a judgment of 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request.