5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kamnik. 6.  In early 1990s the applicant established a company called Hipec d.o.o., which bought a shop in Domžale, Slovenia. On 25 November 1993 a fire broke out in the building where the shop was located. The shop's premises and their contents were destroyed. 7.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant and Hipec instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) against five companies who had built the premises where the applicant had his shop and had been responsible for the maintenance of the building. They were seeking damages in the amount of 160.770.941,20 tolars (approximately 670.000 euros) for the destruction caused by the fire.
None of the thirteen hearings held between 14 February 1996 and 20 September 2000 was adjourned at the request of the applicant. At the hearings, the court heard seven witnesses.
Between 23 February 1996 and 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. He withdrew the claims against two of the respondents. In this time, the respondents lodged twenty-seven written submissions.
During this time the applicant made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing or that the court continue examining the case.
In the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. Since the originally appointed expert had moved to an unknown address, a new expert was appointed. The court also heard the appointed expert and requested him to submit two amendments to his opinion.
At the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 22 November 2000. 8.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).
On 21 August 2001 the applicant's company Hipec d.o.o. ceased to exist and was deleted from the Register of Companies.
On 12 July 2002 the court allowed the appeal in part, set aside a part of the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. 9.  On 22 January 2003 the Ljubljana District Court held a hearing in the proceedings pending against three respondents.
Between 22 January 2003 and 18 November 2005 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. The respondents lodged seven preliminary submissions.
He also made a request for priority treatment of his case, which was upheld.
None of the seven hearings held between 19 March 2003 and 18 January 2006 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
In the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.
The court also appointed a financial expert, who was dismissed at the applicant's request, because the expert had participated in the criminal investigation following the burning down of the building at issue. The court appointed a new financial expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 16 February 2006. 10.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.
The proceedings are still pending.