4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Polzela. 5.  On 21 August 1996 the applicant bought business premises from company I. Shortly afterwards, he learned that the premises were in fact smaller than had been agreed in the contract. 6.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against company I. before the Celje District Court, claiming reimbursement of the corresponding part of the purchase price exceeding the payment for the actual size of the premises. 7.  Hearings were held on 26 November 2001 and 19 December 2001. On the latter date the court decided to appoint a construction expert and adjourned the main hearing so that an expert opinion could be obtained. Both parties agreed that I.U. would be appointed as expert. 8.  On 23 January 2002 the Celje District Court appointed I.U. as the construction expert. On 21 February 2002 notification of the appointment and a summons to retrieve the case file were sent to I.U. Two attempts to serve the court’s correspondence on I.U. were made, but he failed to collect them from the post office. The correspondence was finally served on him on 24 May 2002. 9.   After I.U. had failed to retrieve the case file, despite being reminded to do so by the Court in letters dated 17 July and 15 November 2002 respectively, the Celje District Court appointed another construction expert, J.A, on 12 February 2003. The applicant filed a request to have J.A. excluded from the case on grounds of partiality. 10.  On 25 April 2003 the court granted the applicant’s request to have J.A. excluded and appointed a new expert, F. J. 11.  On 5 May 2003 F. J. informed the court that owing to medical reasons he would not be able to fulfil his appointment. On the same date the court appointed V. T. as expert. 12.  On 30 June 2003 V. T. submitted his expert opinion. 13.  On 29 September 2003 the court held a main hearing at which the parties proposed that the expert opinion be supplemented by further information. The main hearing was for that reason adjourned. 14.  On 4 December 2003 V.T. informed the court that there was no need to supplement his opinion. 15.  On 12 January 2004 a main hearing was held. The parties agreed to obtain additional project documentation from company S. 16.  After having obtained the documentation from company S., the applicant informed the court that he would not be requesting a main hearing with regard to the submitted documentation. 17.  On 2 April 2004 the Celje Distric Court delivered its judgment and ordered company I. to pay 1,103,650 Slovenian tolars (SIT − approximately 5,800 euros (EUR)) plus statutory default interest calculated from 1 September 1996. 18.  On 8 April 2004 the Celje District Court decided to open bankruptcy (insolvency) proceedings against company I. 19.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, seeking the amount payable under the Celje District Court judgment of 2 April 2004. 20.  After the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, 247 creditors lodged claims in the total amount of SIT 2,320,682,457 (approximately EUR 12,212,000). 21.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant’s claim in the amount of SIT 5,502,364 (approximately EUR 29,000) was acknowledged in the bankruptcy proceedings. 22.  On 7 February 2007 the receiver reported to the applicant about the debts and assets of the estate, estimating that after distribution to the priority creditors there would probably be nothing left to repay the ordinary creditors. 23.  On 9 July 2009 the Celje District Court issued a decision on the distribution of the bankruptcy estate to the first ranking (secured) creditors. 24.  On 9 August 2010 the Celje District Court issued a decision on the distribution of the bankruptcy estate to the next ranking (preferential) creditors. 25.  On 27 May 2011 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court. In the appeal, the applicant complained about the length of both the contentious and bankruptcy proceedings. He argued that if the contentious proceedings had been conducted within a reasonable time, he would have been able to enforce his claim before the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings. He further informed the court that he would be willing to settle in the bankruptcy proceedings for 50% of the claim. 26.  On 8 July 2011 the president of the Celje District Court rejected the applicant’s supervisory appeal on procedural grounds as unsubstantiated, since he had failed to give valid reasons as to why he believed the court had been unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. 27.  The bankruptcy proceedings are still pending.