4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Limassol. 5.  The applicant is the owner of immovable property in the area of Tseri-Gerovounos. 6.  On 30 September 1994 the applicant applied to the Director of the Nicosia District Land Registry for the provision of a right of way to his plot, which was enclaved, via adjacent properties. 7.  On 9 January 1995 the director carried out the required local inquiry. 8.  On 9 January 1996 the director delivered his decision determining the right of way. 9.  On 8 February 1996 the owner of the affected property (of the servient tenement) filed an appeal before the District Court of Nicosia against both the applicant and the director, challenging the latter’s decision concerning the course and extent of the right of way granted to the applicant (appeal no. 86/96 Anna Moeseos v. Director of Land and Surveys of the District Land Office and Andreas Gavrielides). 10.  All the pleadings were completed by 29 April 1996 and the case was fixed for directions for 13 May 1996. 11.  On 13 May 1996 the case was adjourned until 12 June 1996 at the parties’ request. From the latter date until 8 November 1996 it was adjourned three times at the appellant’s request. On 8 November 1996 the court fixed the case for 5 February 1997 but on that date it was adjourned at the appellant’s request until 4 March 1997. When the last adjournment was requested, the applicant strongly objected and complained to the court about the continuous adjournments. The court stated that this would be the final time it would fix the court for mention. 12.  On 3 March 1997 the case was fixed for hearing for 20 June 1997. 13.  The case was then adjourned until 30 June 1997 due to the applicant’s absence and to 22 September 1997 with the parties’ agreement for the purposes of a possible friendly settlement. On the latter date the case was set for hearing for 9 December 1997. 14.  On the above date the hearing was adjourned following a preliminary objection by the director’s lawyer in that the director should not be a party to the proceedings and his request for a hearing in this connection. 15.  On 19 December 1997 the district court issued an interim decision ruling that a written application should be made for a preliminary trial and the case was set for mention for 23 January 1998. It was then adjourned however to 16 February 1998 since service of the application to the applicant had not taken place and then fixed for mention for 10 March 1998. 16.  On 11 March 1998 the proceedings against the director were dismissed by the district court and the appeal was fixed for hearing for 3 July 1998. 17.  Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned twice at the appellant’s request; from 3 July 1998 to 22 December 1998 and on that date until 8 January 1999. The applicant was absent on both occasions. The hearing was held on the latter date in the applicant’s absence and the district court upheld the appeal and annulled the director’s decision awarding costs in favour of the appellant. 18.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant filed an application before the district court requesting that the judgment be set aside. He alleged that he had been unable to attend two of the hearing dates for health reasons (he had, inter alia, been abroad for treatment) and submitted medical certificates in this respect. He also claimed that he had not received the notification for the third hearing date in due time. At the material time the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. 19.  On 3 June 1999 the appellant consented to setting the judgment aside but objected to the applicant’s claim as to costs. 20.  On 1 July 1999 the district court set the judgment aside ordering the applicant to pay costs. 21.  From 26 July 1999 until 22 January 2002 several adjournments took place; approximately three at the applicant’s request (one of these was for the purpose of appointing a lawyer), two at the appellant’s request and one at the parties’ request for the purposes of a friendly settlement. The court also dealt with an application filed by the applicant for review of the assessment of costs, which was settled between the parties on 14 June 2000. Within this period, the court adjourned the case three times – once for a period of nearly three months- and fixed it six times for directions (two of these were for the purpose of allowing the parties to reach a friendly settlement). 22.  On 22 January 2002 the proceedings were concluded by withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant with costs in favour of the applicant. 23.  During the proceedings, the applicant had sent letters, inter alia, to the Attorney-General, the Registrar of the Nicosia District Court and the Ombudsman complaining about the length of the proceedings.