5.  The applicant, M.V., is an infant of Serbian nationality who was born in 2002 and currently lives in Belgrade. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant’s representative, S.R., filed a civil claim with the Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking child maintenance from N.V., the applicant’s biological father. 8.  On 2 February 2004 the Second Municipal Court issued an interim maintenance order, which had been requested by the applicant on 19 January 2004. 9.  On 24 November 2004 the District Court quashed the interim order. 10.  By 11 May 2005 a total of five hearings were scheduled. Only one, however, was held while the remaining four were adjourned due to the presiding judge’s “other commitments” (zbog sprečenosti). 11.  Between 17 June 2005 and 20 October 2006, the Second Municipal Court held or adjourned another thirteen hearings. At the hearing of 20 February 2006, it heard the applicant and the respondent for the first time since the beginning of the proceedings. 12.  On 12 December 2006 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and issued an interim maintenance order, pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings. 13.  On 28 February 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed this judgment, as well as the interim order, and remitted the case for a retrial. In so doing it stated that the maintenance awarded needed to be reconsidered and, further, that N.V.’s access to the applicant also had to be regulated. 14.  Between 5 July 2007 and 25 February 2008, three hearings were held, whilst two were adjourned because of a strike and the replacement of certain members of the court’s panel. 15.  On 25 February 2008 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, issued an interim maintenance order pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings, and ordered N.V. to cover the legal costs. 16.  On 31 March 2008 N.V. filed an appeal against this decision. 17.  On 30 May 2008 the District Court reduced the maintenance awarded, rejected the request for an interim maintenance order, and ruled that each party was to pay its own costs and expenses. 18.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 24 July 2008. 19.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. 20.  On 11 August 2008 the applicant also filed a request for the re-opening of the proceedings. 21.  According to the information in the case file provided by the parties to date, it would appear that the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court. 22.  Throughout the proceedings complaints were made on behalf of the applicant about the delay to various State bodies, but to no avail.